Did Moses leave his wife and kids? If so, why? Is this passage implying that Moses left his wife and children before he went into the wilderness?

If that's true, why did Moses leave his family?

  Exodus 18:1-7 ESV Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her home, along with her two sons. The name of the one was Gershom (for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land”), and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”). Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God. And when he sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her,” Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. And they asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent.

It is helpful to read all of Exodus 4 starting at verse 18.

After the burning bush, and God giving Moses signs to do in Egypt, Moses then asked his father in-law if he could return to Egypt. Moses took his wife and two sons, put them on a donkey, and set off for Egypt.

Notice verse 24: ON THE WAY.

Moses' wife was not an Israelite and she was NOT going to allow her son to be circumcised. Moses had yielded to the wishes of his wife, but as he was on the way to represent the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God shows us that NOBODY was exempt from His covenant:

  9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant,
  you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10
  This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your
  descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be
  circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
  foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
  12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male
  child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with
  money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born
  in your house and he who is bought with your money must be
  circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
  covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised
  in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his
  people; he has broken My covenant.” (Genesis 17:9-14)

.........................................................................

When Zipporah saw that God was going to kill Moses, she defiantly complied.

  24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord
  met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone
  and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’[a] feet, and
  said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” 26 So He let him go.
  Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the
  circumcision. (Exodus 4:24-26)

Picturing this scene of marital stife, it's not difficult to see her returning to her father's house at this point, while Moses and Aaron continue on to Egypt.


How is Jesus God's final word? (Catholic Perspective) The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church says plainly (emphasis added):

  In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word.

Indeed, Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

  God, having spoken earlier at many times and in many ways through the Prophets, spoke to us in these last days by the Son, who he established heir over all things and through whom he made the ages.

From a Catholic perspective, what does it mean that Jesus is God's last word? Has God spoken to man in the time since Jesus' teaching? If so, by what method has he done so? If Jesus is God's last word why is that so? For what reason Jesus is God's last word and not eq. Muhammad?

That section of the Youth Catechism for the Catholic Church explains itself quite clearly.
The quote you reference is the first line of the answer to the question:

With Jesus Christ, has everything been said, or does revelation continue even after him?

Including your quote, the answer continues on:

In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word. By listening to him, all men of all times can know who God is and what is necessary for their salvation.
With the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Revelation of God is perfect and complete. To make it comprehensible to us, the Holy Spirit leads us ever deeper into the truth. God's light breaks so forcefully into the lives of many individuals that they "see the heavens opened" (Acts 7:56). That is how the great place of pilgrimage such as Guadalupe in Mexico or Lourdes in France came about. The "private revelations" of visionaries cannot improve on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No one is obliged to believe in them. But they can help us understand the Gospel better. Their authenticity is tested by the Church.

So it says, in the first paragraph, that the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is Universal in scope - valid for "all men of all times" and Ultimate in purpose - they "can know who God is and what is necessary for their salvation."  It goes on to imply, in the second paragraph, that it is possible to receive additional "private revelations", but they will only be judged authentic if they are consistent (and don't go 'beyond') the 'final' (in terms of completeness or what is required - "perfect and complete" - not final in a temporal sense) revelation that God has given us in Christ. It is the Church that can make the determination of whether "private revelations" are in accord or contradictory to the 'final word'.
It then further explains the important concept of:

Incarnation - from the latin caro, carnis=flesh, "becoming flesh". God's act of becoming man in Jesus Christ. This is the foundation of Christian faith and of hope for the redemption of mankind (emphasis added)

i.e. God speaks to us most clearly (and 'finally' in the sense given before) by becoming one of us, and yet showing his Holy nature within the context of human flesh - "God himself came to earth".
It further references (part of) the scripture that most clearly delineates this doctrine:

1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son - Hebrews 1:1-2a RSV

The quote stops there, but it is well worth examining the complete discourse on the topic at the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews which actually continues well into the third chapter: Heb 1:1-3:6 RSV,  with further illumination on the superiority of Christ over all servants of God later in the epistle as well.
Finally, it includes illuminating quotes from the Catholic luminaries Blaise Pascal:

Apart from Jesus Christ, we do not know what God, life, death, and we ourselves are

and Mother Teresa of Calcutta:

I have no imagination. I cannot picture God the Father. All that I can see is Jesus.

These quotes are in line with the Bible's teaching from 1 John 4:12-15 & 20 RSV:

12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God...    20 If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Additionally, not mentioned in that particular section, is the concept of Jesus as the 'logos' i.e. the eternal word of God (cf. John 1).  In this sense, Jesus is the first and last word of God and every word in between! For example:

10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. - 1 Peter 1:10-11 RSV (emphasis added)

Summary: Jesus is God's 'last word' in the sense that through Him and only Him can we truly know God - any others that have or teach a contradictory revelation are respectively deceived or deceivers.


Where did Martin Luther say that he placed "his Christ higher than any dogma or council"? In which of his writings did Luther say something like "I am not trying to be arrogant here, but I place my Christ higher than any dogma or council"?

Luther wrote extensively, and in German, making quote identification rather difficult.  However, the language you use here is reminiscent of Luther's famous speech at the Diet of Worms, where he said:

  Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen. (Marty, Martin Luther, 68)

Here, however, Luther does not say that Christ is higher than the councils, but rather the Scriptures.  He does connect the two in other writings, and perhaps come closer to your language:

  I pray the God of all mercies that he teach Your Grace this one thing, that Christ and his Word are more, higher, greater, and more trustworthy than a hundred thousand holy fathers, councils, churches, popes, etc., for the Scriptures call all of these sinners and lost sheep. (Luther: Letters, 164)


What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers? What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?

This doctrine was made evident from several passages:

Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

Therefore, priests as mediators is against this biblical passage.
We are called a holy people, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)
Jesus blood has made us into priests and kings (Revelation 5:10)
The apostles were not supposed to be regarded as leaders, but as servants (1 Corinthians 4:1)

They were the foundation of the church because they were: entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed (1 Corinthians 4:1), not because they were given special authority

Other passages that support the idea of the universal priesthood:
Exodus 19:5, Revelations 1:4-6, and other passages in the book of Hebrews.

Wikipedia is a good source for more information.


Why are Protestants from the Church of England allowed to divorce? Since Paul said that divorce is forbidden, and Paul's letters are to be taken as word of God, why do some Protestant churches (Church of England for example) permit divorce?

I think there are two basic answers to your question.  The first, and simple answer is:

Many Protestant churches do not allow divorce.  Some congregations deny membership rights to people who are divorced.

The more direct, and also more complex, answer to your question is:

Many protestant churches permit divorce because there is simply nothing they can do about it.

Divorce is a legal right in most places, regardless of whether the church allows it.  Many Catholics get divorced, too.  Although in the eyes of the Catholic church, such a divorce (and possible remarriage) is not recognized.

The consequences of divorce within the church are usually rather minimal.  A divorced person cannot remarry in a Catholic ceremony, for instance. Many protestant churches and pastors will have similar restrictions, refusing to allow a ceremony of a divorced couple in their facilities, or refusing to officiate the ceremony for a divorced person.

However, beyond refusing to allow or officiate marriages, and possibly refusing membership rights to divorcees, there's very little any church can do to prevent divorce.

The same is true of practically any practice that is considered sinful in the eyes of the church.  A church can only do so much in "discipline."

A second issue, beside the fact that churches are essentially powerless, is the concept of forgiveness.

Many churches are willing to forgive pass transgressions such as divorce, especially if they happened prior to conversion.


Have the individual commands of the OT Law ever been categorized as "Moral," "Ceremonial," and "Civil?" Are there any historic Christian documents that provide a comprehensive categorization of the commands of the OT Law / mitzvot using the three categories from the WCF?

And, if so, then as a secondary question: Why is it such a list so difficult to find??

Context:

The "threefold division of the law" into the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial, was standardized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter nineteen, and according to some scholars can be traced, in various forms, as far back as the writings of Barnabas.

This page at GotQuestions.org links the "moral" category with a "mishpatim," and the "ceremonial" category with a "hukkim or chuqqah," apparent references to Judaic teachings. The "civil / judicial" category is said to be a creation of the Westminster Divines.

Efforts to research the words "mishpatim," and "hukkim," "chuqqah," online have quickly led to lots of Hebrew text that I don't understand on Jewish sites, and I'm not sure if the GotQuestions page is correct in connecting the Christian and Jewish categories in the first place.

I have found the C.SE questions (1) and (2) to be helpful, but this question doesn't seem to have been directly addressed here (or elsewhere, for all I can tell) in the past. Thanks.

There is no risk in saying that no well known person has ever tried to categorize all of the commands of the Old Testament into moral, ceremonial and civil categories. The reason is that although it is helpful to consider the Law among those divisions Christians have never felt it that important to do so.  Christians do not even have a unanimous view on wether the commandment in the 'Ten Commandments' to obey the Sabbath, it moral, civil, or ceremonial.

For example:

  In Sabbatarian apologetic, it is common to distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil law. The Sabbath commandment is then thought to be binding on all, not only because it is alleged to be a “creation ordinance,” but also because it is part of the Decalogue, which is classified as “moral.” The distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law is apt, especially in terms of functional description, but it is not self-evident that either the Old Testament or New Testament writers neatly classify Old Testament law in those categories in such a way as to establish continuity and discontinuity on the basis of such distinctions. Even if such categories are applied, it should be noted that both David’s law-breaking and that of the priests (found only in Matthew) come from ceremonial law. It is difficult, then, to resist the conclusion that their applicability to the Sabbath case puts Sabbath law in the ceremonial category with them. (Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels,” pp. 68–69.)

If Christians can't agree on how to classify the Ten Commandments under this scheme (which I still think is very useful) how would one even attempt to denominate every precept in the Old Testament strictly under it?

I think it is fair to say that in general Christians at the time of the Apostles understood that the ceremonial law was obsolete, that separation of Jew and Gentile was obsolete and that love for God and one's neighbor summed up 'whatever' was not obsolete in Christ. They also recognized the moral law in some form existed before Moses.

The freedom was so great and the glory so grand, that there was no need to strictly define everything.  Rather to allow for the weaknesses of individuals who held to traditions of their upbringing, as well as the ignorance of some who had no moral upbringing at all, a culture of tolerance over the subject was adopted as it did not matter.  The only time it did matter is when someone tried to add a condition to faith as a requirement to be a 'real' or 'strong' Christian.  Then the Apostles made a strong stance.   For example, if someone thought circumcision had some value then Paul would say:

  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. (ESV 1Co 7:19-20 )

However, if someone tried to pressure others to be circumcised he would then say it differently:

  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. (ESV Gal 5:2)


How does Free Grace Theology reconcile 1 John? My understanding of Free Grace Theology is that it separates the believers salvation from their sanctification, in that sanctification is not the necessary result of salvation.   It separates the call to believe and be saved from the call to follow and be a disciple.  In other words, people may be saved without exactly being "followers" (i.e., without going through the process of sanctification).

There are many passages in 1 John that seem to contradict Free Grace Theology, such as 1 John 3:9-10 (NASB)

  No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in
  him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [10] By this the
  children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone
  who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who
  does not love his brother

This passage seems to contradict Free Grace Theology's teaching that the saved may not be "followers" of Christ.

How do adherents to Free Grace Theology reconcile/interpret 1 John?

Disclaimer: I understand that this passage is not saying that Christians will never sin, lest it contradict 1 John 1:10.

I recommend you read Zane Hodges' book "The Gospel Under Siege" for a full answer to this question, as he deals with 1 John. I am fully convinced that 1 John is a letter to believers and is a test of fellowship, not a test of life. When it says in the original greek that they are "not of God" it is referring to their fellowship with God, not whether they are saved or not.


What does the Bible say about this question- Why do Jesus and God have two seats in heaven when they are the same God? Please answer! I have been wondering for ages! I have tried google and all sorts, but can't find the answer.

Jesus and the Father are one God, but they are two persons. Two persons deserve two seats.

To expand slightly, according to mainstream (i.e. Trinitarian) Christianity, Jesus and the Father are separate persons. In fact this passage is considered evidence that Jesus is not simply a different manifestation of God the Father. I recommend consulting a detailed explanation of the Trinity for more information.

Mike gives an excellent answer describing the imagary, by the way.


Is God's name Yahweh or Jehovah? God's name is written as the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) in the Old Testament. The name is not vocalized in the manuscripts and it's considered ineffable, forbidden to say aloud, by Jews. For that reason, the original pronunciation hasn't been preserved.

The two most commonly suggested possible originals are Yahweh and Jehovah. Long ago I heard it claimed that the vocalization Jehovah is based on a misunderstanding, but I don't remember the reasoning.

Which is the probable vocalization, or is it some altogether different one?

When a word isn't spoken, all you have to go by is its written representation.  Unfortunately, the written representation is incomplete, as ancient Hebrews only wrote consonants.  You were supposed to be able to infer the rest of the word from context, and you'd be familiar with them because you used most of them in day to day speech.

Oops!  Since the name of the Lord was not spoken aloud, the context needed for interpolation ended up being lost, and now we can only guess at it.  The theory is that "Jehovah" is the tetragrammaton with the vowels from adonai ("Lord", used in the place of the ineffable name) mixed in.  "Yahweh" is a guess based on trying to reverse-engineer the name into ancient Hebrew roots.  It may or may not be correct.


Matthew 5:13-16 is for the Israelites ONLY? We are having a discussion about how we, as a follower of Christ, are the ‘salt of earth and light of the world’ (Matthew 5:13-16).

Someone insists that the verses are for the Israelite people/disciples only and it is not applicable for us Gentiles/believers now.

We tried to explain and give them verses like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Galatians 3:28, etc.
They also insists that certain parts of the Scripture are for the Israelites people only, this even includes the Great Commission and other teachings of Jesus.

Can you help me explain better to them the opposite position: that Matthew 5:13-16 is not for the Israelites only.

You are encountering a theology called Dispensationalism.

Plenty of sites will give you an overview, and many better than Wikipedia, but a key part of their theology is that God dealt with Man in distinct ways in distinct times. Most hold that the change from the 'Old Covenant' to the 'New Covenant' occurred only after the death of Jesus (usually at Acts 2) and that until then all teaching - including the teaching of Jesus - was under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was superceded by the New, and its teaching made irrelevant.This irrelevant teaching includes the teaching of Jesus.

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs. Dispensationalism is widespread in the United States, and results in significant numbers of people who call themselves Christian yet believe that the teachings of their God in the person of Jesus are irrelevant to them, and indeed were irrelevant only a few years (or even hours) after they were taught. It's easy to work out the implications of that in the current climate.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave finding Biblical arguments against this position for yourself, but you might start asking them for the Biblical support of their claims. If you are part of a church that does not hold dispensationalist beliefs, talk to your church leaders about this theology and the church's attitude to it.


Did John forget about Elijah? 2 Kings 2:11 say

  And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

But John 3:13 say

  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Did John forget about Elijah?

According to Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. II, "ascended" in John 3:15: "Equivalent to hath been in. Jesus says that no one has been in heaven except the Son of man who came down out of heaven; because no man could be in heaven without having ascended thither" (italics in the original).

It appears that Jesus' emphasis was not the trip to heaven, but being in a place of heaven that only He has entered. I don't know where Elijah ended up, but it evidently wasn't in the same localized area where Jesus was.


What is the difference between the KJV, AKJV, NKJV, etc? Hello I've been confused by the amount of KJV bibles there are.

The AKJV means the authorised King James Bible but AKJV also stands for American King James Bible as well.
From my understanding the Authorized KJV (1611) is the KJV but I've read that the 1611 version is not the KJV used today. Been told "Get a 1611 AKJV". So they are referencing a certain type of KJV.
The website bible gateway has the AKJV and KJV as options as if they were different versions but I haven't noticed any differences in it yet. Except someone said the AKJV has British English?
I looked at it on Wiki and the 1611 version has a section to itself and it doesn't seem this is the same KJV we use today? I'm confused how it is the same bible of 1611 we call the AKJV.

https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024144529AA84Ts5

Then there comes the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV which seems to be a form of the KJV and others....seems like many versions exist. But is it just modernised text?

What is the difference between all of these? What KJV should I get? How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV" if they are different which they seem to be? (I own a KJV already)
On Amazon if you look up 1611 KJV you find only a few results and they especially have 1611 on the cover.

Seems there is a conflict between the AKJV and the KJV being the same or not by searches I've done. Are they really the same or not?
There also seems to be "counterfeits" used in stores (not illegal books just a fake KJV...not sure what they mean) http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html ???

Your questions are:

What is the difference between the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV King James Versions?
What KJV should I get?
How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV"

I think the major differences are in the degree to which spelling has been modernized.  The "original" 1611 KJV version can be found here and reads like this:

  For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting
  life.

[To answer the third question, I would say that if the text looks like something from Beowulf, then you probably are reading from the original 1611 text.]

Reprints of the 1611 edition were not tightly controlled.  As a result, Cambridge University produced an updated "standard" text in 1760, while Oxford produced its own edition in 1769, which is the basis for most King James texts today.  It reads, for example,

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
  life.

Later editions marketed as the "King James Version" contain minor changes and corrections.  The "Pure Cambridge Edition", published around 1900, for example, featured 6 changes from the 1769 Oxford version, with 30 reversals of the Oxford translations to the 1760 Cambridge translation.

The AKJV, NKJV, KJ21 and MKJV are all versions which purport to follow the original KJV translations, but substitute modern vocabulary and grammar.

One thing that all King James Versions have in common is that they are based on a particular set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were consulted in the 17th century.  The Hebrew text was not the "original" Hebrew, but rather a Masorah compiled by an Italian Jew, Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, written in medieval Hebrew (which used an invented alphabet).
The Greek manuscripts were from a limited 16th century Dutch collection compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam.


Do any Christian groups believe that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in? Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is quoted from a 1998 commencement speech as saying that his personal theory was that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in during the seven years of plenty:

  My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.

Are there any Christian groups who share this view? If so, on what do they base this hypothesis?

Here is a fascinating article about the history of the idea that the pyramids were grain stores.

There is no mention of pyramids in the Bible's version of the story but in the Middle Ages people started to write them into the story. "If you go to St Mark's cathedral in Venice, there's a medieval depiction showing people using the three great pyramids of Giza as granaries in Joseph's story," says John Darnell, a professor of Egyptology at Yale University. "If you didn't have access to the structures, the idea had some currency." The belief was also popularised by Saint Gregory of Tours, a sixth century Frankish bishop, who wrote: "They are wide at the base and narrow at the top in order that the wheat might be cast into them through a tiny opening, and these granaries are to be seen to the present day."
But Darnell says the idea began to fall out of favour during the Renaissance, when people made more detailed studies of the pyramids.
Egyptologist James Allen of Brown University [says] "There's no way in the world an ounce of grain would be stored in a structure like that. It would be totally impractical. It's like saying the Tower of London was built as a granary store."

For details of why the theory is now discounted, see Gordon Stranger's excellent answer.
There seems to be no hint that any modern Christian groups hold this view as a matter of doctrine.


When was Jesus anointed and who did the anointing? I know that "Christ" or "Messiah" means "anointed or anointed one" and that Jesus commonly has the title of "Christ."  One thing I do not recall is an account of Him being anointed.  To that end, what is the biblical basis for Jesus' title?

Jesus of Nazareth was not anointed with the anointing oil which was typically used for the priests of the Levitical priesthood.1 Rather, he was anointed with the Holy Spirit, “the oil of gladness.”
In Psa. 45:6–7, it is written,

6 O’ God, Your throne is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. 7 You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore O’ God, Your God anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

This event was documented in all four of the gospels.2 In addition, in Acts 10:38, it is written,

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. KJV, 1769

Augustine wrote,3

Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, when hears [that he is] God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [that he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (Christum) is named from chrism (chrismate), this is, from anointing?
Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?

It is certainly true that Christians are also anointed by God the Father with the Holy Spirit who dwells in them.4 The difference is that the Lord Jesus Christ does not possess the Holy Spirit “from a measure.”5 The Greek word μέτρου, the genitive declension of the noun μέτρον, means a measuring instrument. God the Father did not restrict the quantity of the Holy Spirit given to His Son. Rather, “all the fullness of deity” dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ.6

References
Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII. Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.
Footnotes
1 cp. Exo. 29:7
2 Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:32–3; also, Luke 4:18 cp. Isa. 61:1
3 De Civitate Dei (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. 238
4 1 John 2:27
5 John 3:34: «ἐκ μέτρου»
6 Col. 1:19, 2:9


What do Christians mean by a "personal relationship" with Jesus? When Christians talk about having a "personal relationship with Jesus," what does this mean?

Christians believe that Jesus is alive, he knows us intimately, and is our best friend above all others. A personal relationship with him is exactly that: a relationship very much akin to  that we have with other close friends and family members. Often people focus on the majesty and "kingliness" side of Jesus, and in doing so are tempted to distance themselves from him by seeing him as some distant, untouchable, unreachable figure on a throne high above us; but to have a personal relationship with him means to accept our own position as co-heirs with him, to share our lives much more openly with him.

As a Brit, when I meet (earthly) royalty I dress up and put on my best manners, and in effect put on a show. I don't need to do that with Jesus - he's seen me naked, in my own home, he shares my ups and downs and secrets that I certainly wouldn't blurt out to the Queen if I met her. So while acknowledging that Jesus is King, I don't treat him in a stand-offish formal way because he's also my best friend. That's what it means to have a personal relationship with him.


“Jesus said to them 'I am'" (John 18:6) - Did Jesus break a taboo here? In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time?

  As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward,
  and fell to the ground (John 18:6)

If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all), if not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word).

Actually, Jesus broke taboos quite frequently.  However, when Jesus broke a taboo, the taboo was wrong--not Jesus.

Some of the other taboos Jesus broke include the following:

Breaking the Sabbath

  So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish
  leaders began to persecute him. (John 5:16 NIV)

Claiming Equality with God

  For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he
  breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father,
  making himself equal with God.  (John 5:18 NIV)

Forgiving Sins

  Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?  (Mark 2:7 NIV)

Associating with tax collectors and sinners

  When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  (Matthew 9:11 NIV)

Claiming the sacred name of God

  "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”  (John 8:58 NIV)

So, I would say that, yes, Jesus was breaking a taboo.  He was the only one who had the authority to claim the sacred name of God, so no one else could break that taboo.  Yet, He also broke several other taboos as well.


What is the meaning of "baptism by fire"? We all know what water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit are. But what does John the Baptist mean by, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and FIRE" in Luke 3:16:

  John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (emphasis added)

Is there a generally-accepted interpretation of what fire means in this context; or can there be a quick overview of the most-accepted understandings?

16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

  17 whose fan is in his hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.

According to the context in “fire” in 3:16 and 17 is not the fire in Acts 2:3, which is related to the Holy Spirit.

  3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.

Also, the same incident can be seen in Matthew 3:10 and 11. John the Baptist said:

  10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

  11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

These verses mention fire twice. It is not logical to say that the first time fire is mentioned it is negative, but the second time the same word is used it is positive. Therefore, baptism in fire does not have a positive meaning; it is not related to the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Rather, it is the fire in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

Matthew Henry:

  Probably this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which was not, as other judgments had been, like the lopping off of the branches, or cutting down of the body of the tree, leaving the root to bud again, but it would be the total, final, and irrecoverable extirpation of that people, in which all those should perish that continued impenitent. Now God would make a full end, wrath was coming on them to the utmost.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

  The "fire," which in another verse is called "unquenchable," can be no other than that future "torment" of the impenitent whose "smoke ascendeth up for ever and ever," and which by the Judge Himself is styled "everlasting punishment" ( Matthew 25:46 ).
  Verse 12 continues:

  Whose winnowing fan is in His hand. And He will thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and will gather His wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.

If a person is wheat, Christ will baptize him with the Holy Spirit, and he will have life. However, if he is chaff, He will baptize him with fire; that is, He will put him into the lake of fire.

Here, it means that if the people will truly repent and believe in the Lord Jesus, the Lord will baptize them in the Holy Spirit so that they may have eternal life. Otherwise, the Lord will baptize them in fire, putting them into the lake of fire for eternal punishment. John’s baptism was only for repentance, to usher people to faith in the Lord. The Lord’s baptism is either for eternal life in the Holy Spirit or for eternal perdition in fire.

So, the Pharisees and Sadducees, came to John the Baptist in a pretentious way. It is as if John said, “If you do not bear fruit, you will be cut down and cast into the fire. You may fool me because I come only to baptize you with water, but you cannot fool Him. When He comes, He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He will clear up His threshing floor. If you are the real ones, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit for life. If you are the false ones, He will put you into the fire.”

Lastly, there are three kinds of baptisms referred in the Bible: the baptism in water, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the baptism in fire. The baptism in water is for repentance, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for life, and the baptism in fire is for perdition.


If a monk dies after been married to a woman, who inherits his legacy? If a monk, after he made his eternal vows, quits his monastery and marries a woman by law and his 'marriage' with the monastery is not annulled by the pope, to which is his legacy (capital) going when he dies? To the monastery or to his wife?

Of course this is be answered by the rules of the RCC.

Would the answer be the same for a pastor/priest who had received his ordination?

A monk is not "married" to his monastery in any sense at all, so there is nothing to be annulled. If a monk wishes to leave the monastery, he can ask for an "indult of exclaustration" (canon 686 section 1), which can be granted by either the bishop or the pope, depending on what kind of religious institute ("order") the monk is in.

Once the monk is granted this indult, he is " considered freed from the obligations which cannot be reconciled with the new condition of his or her life" (canon 687), including the perpetual vows of celibacy and of poverty (is that its one of the vows of the institute he was a member of). If the former monk marries at this point, his responsibility is solely to his wife and his family. There is no question of any part of his inheritance going to the monastery unless he specifically wills it.


Is Job's statement that his redeemer lives and would stand upon the Earth, a statement of faith or a prediction of Christ? Job in his distress stated that he believed that he would be redeemed by a redeemer who would in the latter day.

Job 19:25  KJV

  For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:.

Since this was said by Job while he was in contention with God, I have wondered if he was predicting the birth of a savior much in the same way that Isaiah did in Isaiah chapter 53 (not quoted here for the sake of brevity).

Are there any theologians, or doctrines from any denominations concerning this?

In the NIV, there is a note associated with word ‘Redeemer’ which indicates ‘Vindicator’ could be used. In the on-line NET Bible, the note for ‘Redeemer’ (#59) contains: “The word is well-known in the OT because of its identification as the kinsman-redeemer (see the Book of Ruth). This is the near kinsman who will pay off one’s debts, defend the family, avenge a killing, marry the widow of the deceased. The word “redeemer” evokes the wrong connotation for people familiar with the NT alone; a translation of “Vindicator” would capture the idea more.”

To help get the context, we read Job 19:23-24 where Job wants his words etched into something so permanent that they would last forever. In Job 19:25, the verse in question, Job is not questioning who that vindicator will be or if there is one yet to come. Job already knows his Redeemer and that his Redeemer lives but his distress is that his Redeemer is presently hiding His face from him. In the NIV, this verse reads:  “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.”

Job wants his words written down and saved throughout history until his Redeemer comes and stands on the earth and can read them and vindicate Job for what has happened to him. Job thought God had turned His face from him and no longer knew what was going on. Job thought if God knew what was going on, He would have stepped in and done something about it as He had in the past. With what happened to him ‘etched in stone’, Job could even die but would still be vindicated. He had a problem believing God would not be doing something if He already knew.

This is not a messianic prophecy but the cry of a servant trying to understand why everything was happening to him and wanting vindication for it. I left a link below to an article that shows how this suffering brought Job to the point of humility where such an attitude of vindication was no longer necessary. As Job learned, “I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear but now my eyes have seen You” (Job 42:5) and “I know you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). In humility Job came to realize his suffering was but momentary intended to do what it accomplished, drive him closer to God. He no longer needed vindication, he had God.

References:
Job 19:23-29 (NIV - www.biblegateway.com)
Job 19 (on-line NET Bible - net.bible.org)
Go to www.bible.org and search for: "The Ideal of Submission (Job)"

Updated!

Messianic Prophecy is scripture recording future events related to Messiah.

Messianic prophecy is recorded evidence produced by many people disconnected across time or distance that finds complete fulfillment in the life of Jesus Christ. It is never an interpretation or idea just thought up by an individual or group or somehow passed down through tradition. It is not possible for all the different people to record different prophecies with such coherency and accuracy without guidance in what they were recording. Messianic prophecy is revelation from a single source, the Holy Spirit.

  2 Peter 1:20-21 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (NKJV)

Throughout the Bible there is other prophecy recording future events that are not necessarily related with Messiah. Yet this too carries the distinction that it is not thought up by an individual or group but was revealed by the Holy Spirit.

As we analyze the book of Job, we do not see the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit like we do in Isaiah 53. There the suffering servant is described in such detail and in a number of ways that the only one who can fit is Jesus Christ. For example: as one who will be marred so badly he didn’t look human (speaking of the beating Jesus Christ received); as one who people would question if God’s power really was revealed through him (speaking of the leaders who did not want to believe his miracles were of God); or as one who would be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted (speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the right hand of God). In all of this, Isaiah could have written all of these only if the Holy Spirit was revealing them to him.

  Job 19:25 reads: I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.

But if we add the context around the verse we find an indication that Job wanted to be vindicated by God but thought he was going to die before that happened. As a result, he desired a permanent record of the events so they could be on hand when God would stand on this earth. As I ponder this, what I think it is referring to is the final judgement before God that all people will go through in the future. Hebrews 9:27 refers to judgment after one dies. But what I think connects better is Revelation 20:11 thru 22:5. This is where the Great White Throne Judgement takes place followed by the New Jerusalem descending to the earth and lit up with the glory of the Almighty God and his Lamb, Jesus Christ.

If Job knew something of what is recorded in Revelation, then that would be when he would be able to plead his case and that would be when God would stand on the earth. But nowhere else in the book of Job do I see an indication that the Holy Spirit was leading Job to record a revelation. If we care to assign a revelation to Job 19:25, I think it must be a revelation of the Great White Throne Judgement and New Jerusalem being setup rather than Messianic.


In what ways did early Jansenists believe that their doctrine of salvation differed from that of Calvinism? The soteriology of Jansenism appears to bear some resemblance to that of Calvinism, as both emphasize doctrines like original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace.  The two movements also share a common influence in Augustine, who was often quoted by their members.

Another similarity is that both groups were ultimately regarded as heretical by Catholicism – the pope condemned Jansenism in 1653, despite claims by Jansenists that their views were not the same as those of Calvinists.

Therein lies my question: In the years leading up to their condemnation, how did Jansenists argue that their views on soteriology, particularly original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace, were different from those of Calvinists?

Indisputably, Jansenists considered Calvinists heretics, denied imputation of righteousness, and affirmed Catholic doctrine on all non-soteriological matters. Jansenists additionally claimed that they (in alleged contrast to Calvinism) affirmed man's theoretical freedom not to sin and man's cooperation with grace. Some Jansenists also denied eternal security. Let's take a further look at each of these things.

Undisputed differences with Calvinism

Before we address the meat of the question, let's examine the undisputed differences between Jansenism and Calvinism:

All non-soteriological issues. In God Owes Us Nothing, page 91, Leszek Kolakowski writes, "In such important matters as the interpretation of the Eucharist and of penance, the sacrament of priesthood (to which they attached special weight), the apostolic succession, the cult of saints and of the Holy Virgin (prominent in Saint-Cyran), and the very concept of the Church, including the hierarchy and the papacy, they were emphatically, unequivocally Roman."
Imputation of righteousness. In Iustitia Dei, page 284, Alister McGrath writes, "The entire post-Tridentine Catholic tradition (including those otherwise considered heterodox, such as Baianists and Jansenists) continued to regard justification as a process in which man was made righteous, involving the actualisation rather than the imputation of righteousness."
The truth or error of Calvinism. As you noted, when the Jansenists were accused of Calvinism, Jansenists did not argue that Calvinism was correct -- they argued that they were not actually Calvinists. This goes back to Jansen himself, who was a proud Catholic and wrote tracts against the prominent Calvinist Gisbert Voet, though it was not on soteriological matters but "on the question of the legitimacy of a Protestant mission in conquered Catholic lands," according to Hans van Ruler in the Dictionary of Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Dutch Philosophers.

Alleged differences with Calvinism

After the church condemned "five propositions" attributed to Jansen in his book Augustinus, Jansenists circulated a tract (titled in Latin, Brevissima quinque Popositionum Distinctio, or in French, Distinction Abrégée des Cinq Propositions) which claimed that the five propositions were actually ambiguous and could be interpreted in orthodox or heretical ways. The tract contained three columns. Under each of the five propositions, they explicated two possible heretical interpretations (on one side, the Calvinist interpretation, and on the other, the Semi-Pelagian, which they attributed to the Molinists), and one "orthodox" interpretation, that is, the Jansenist interpretation. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the tract in English or any summary that goes beyond the facts I've just recounted. But I was able to find other descriptions of Jansenists' claims about their differences with Calvinism.

Nigel Abercrombie's book The Origins of Jansenism is perhaps the most thorough English-language treatment of the movement. The first section discusses Jansen's book Augustinus. On page 151, discussing Augustinus, Volume 3, Book 8, Abercrombie says:

  Jansen denies that his system is identical with that of Calvin, and supports his denial with three ancient sophistries: the first, that man could resist either delectatio 'if he would' (si velit), but he never does, because the delectationes determine his will; the second, that man 'co-operates' with grace, but only in the sense that the effect of grace is an action performed by man; the third, that when we sin, the avoidance of sin is 'in our power', in the sense already explained in the third book de Gratia Christi.

Since I don't understand the difference between the first and third "sophistry," and since Abercrombie elsewhere seems to conflate the two, I'll treat them under the same header. In addition to these points, it's worth mentioning the intra-Jansenist debate on eternal security.

Theoretical freedom not to sin

Before we can understand the distinctions Jansen made about theoretical freedom, we have to understand his theology of sin. Essentially, he taught that the will is either directed toward earthly or heavenly pleasures (or "delectations") at all times, and whichever presents the stronger pull in the individual will be victorious. See The Condemnation of Jansenism by George Tiffany:

  Jansenius taught, as did Baius, that supernatural grace was part of the very essence of man. Hence, when grace was lost due to original sin, the nature of man was essentially impaired. If man's nature, then, is essentially corrupt, the will is no longer master of its decisions. Its freedom is only freedom from external violence, not freedom from necessity. The will is then incapable of doing good and cannot resist the grace of God. It must always obey the strongest impression or, what Jansenius calls, the "delectatio victrix". This means that we must act according to that which gives us most pleasure. Jansenius took this doctrine from St. Augustine, but the sense of St. Augustine as seen from the context is this: if we put our happiness in virtue or vice, then virtue or vice will be the ruler of our lives. Due to his theory of knowledge by divine illumination, St. Augustine emphasized to a great extent the part of the will in knowledge. Accordingly, illumination and the consequent delectation affected the will in the process of knowledge. Jansenius overemphasized this. He took the words of St. Augustine to mean that the will is hovering between two attractions and that the stronger is always victorious and draws the assent of the will.

Let's revisit Abercrombie's summary of Jansen's thought on this matter from page 151:

  Man could resist either delectatio 'if he would' (si velit), but he never does, because the delectationes determine his will. ... When we sin, the avoidance of sin is 'in our power', in the sense already explained in the third book de Gratia Christi.

Here then is how Abercrombie summarizes Jansen's arguments on the subject "in the third book." From page 146:

  [Jansen says that] God sometimes commands what is impossible, ... 'not only to infidels, or to "blinded and hardened" men, but also to faithful and just men who will and try to perform them with all the power at their present disposal; and that the grace whereby these precepts might be made possible, is lacking to them.' ... Those who possess [faith and charity] would be able to perform any commandment if their will were set free by efficacious grace for this purpose; they are therefore said to be able to fulfil the commandments 'if they will'.

Cooperation with grace

Later in the book, Abercrombie discusses later Jansenists' defenses of their orthodoxy. On page 216, as he recounts the arguments that the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld's Second Apology gives in response to Bishop Isaac Habert:

  Habert had declared (following the Louvain Theses) that Jansen no more admitted human co-operation than did Calvin. Arnauld replies that the accusation is entirely false, and rests upon no authority, and quotes a few short passages of Augustinus which assert human co-operation. For the first time, however, Arnauld's defence is short and undeveloped--for the reason that Jansen, like Calvin himself, admitted indeed a physical co-operation of human activity in the production of the act, but allowed no more.

It appears that Arnauld and Jansen taught that man cooperates with his own sanctification. Calvinists sometimes speak in much the same way, so it would seem that if there's a real difference between them on this point, it's that Jansenism identifies sanctification with justification (along with the rest of Catholicism) and Calvinism asserts that there is an important distinction between the two doctrines. This is a significant difference, but perhaps it is not the same difference that Arnauld thought it was.

Is there eternal security?

In The Religious Origins of the French Revolution, Dale Van Kley recounts an ongoing internecine debate between several Jansenists, including Antoine Arnauld, Laurent Boursier, Jean-Baptiste Le Sesne de Ménilles d'Étemare, and Pierre Nicole. The subject of the debate was the proper balance between fear and confidence in a life of faith. Those who believed that confidence should prevail affirmed perseverance of the saints and assurance of salvation, whereas those on the side of fear denied both doctrines.

Van Kley says writes of Arnauld's denial of eternal security on page 102:

  The clinching argument of Arnauld's nine-hundred page polemic against the decisions of Dordrecht was that the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints undermined fear and gave rise to a "false assurance" of salvation, proving that the "supposed Reformation of the Calvinists, far from being a work of the Holy Spirit, can only be regarded as the work of a demon."

However, on page 104, the affirmation most Jansenists gave (implicitly or explicitly) to the doctrine comes into focus:

  From the thought of God's "supreme majesty," on the one hand, Boursier derived the quasi-Calvinist comfort of being among the elect to whom God vouchsafed the gift of hope while delegating to charity the role of providing some additional "marks" of salvation. And from a consideration of God's "infinite mercy" as displayed in the crucifixion, on the other hand, he also derived confidence that spoke directly to the heart, whose independent testimony in the matter he defended. ... Boursier did not go out of his way to explain the difference between this testimony of the heart and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that Arnauld had so excoriated when appealed to by Calvinists.
  But even if Boursier's and d'Etemare's many qualifications be deemed sufficient to distinguish their position from Calvinist confidence, their emphasis was all on the side of confidence and against fear--a far cry, in any case, from the emphases of Arnauld and Nicole. ... To the extent that the Jansenist theological community had become more "confident," it also became a little more Calvinist, at least by the standards of its own understanding of Calvinist theology.


What is the origin of the idea that Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention Lazarus in order to protect him? As discussed in another question, on why Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention the raising of Lazarus, this miracle is only related in John 11 – the Synoptics, though they presumably knew about it, didn't include such an apparently spectacular and pivotal miracle.

A number of explanations have been provided, but one in particular has been around a long time: that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written during Lazarus's (second) lifetime, and that they did not want to expose Lazarus to persecution from the Jews (cf. John 12:9–11).

Two Methodist commentators, Adam Clarke and Daniel Whedon, offer this as their primary explanation for the silence of the Synoptics.  Adam Clarke attributes it to Hugo Grotius, a 17th century theologian.  But Whedon seems to go further:

  The ancient reply is, (and perhaps no better can be given,) that the other Evangelists wrote while Lazarus was still living, and from delicacy, or for safety, avoided exposing him to notoriety and danger from the hostile Jews. [bold added]

In the context of church history, the word "ancient," at least to me, indicates the early church period – ending around the 6th century.  However, I've not found any reference to this theory in the several early commentators I've checked – Augustine, Chrysostom, Eusebius – or in Aquinas's commentary on John.

What is the origin of this particular explanation of the Synoptic silence on Lazarus?  Does it have truly "ancient" origins, or is Hugo Grotius its originator?

Reconsidering Johannine Christianity: A Social Identity Approach,
by Raimo Hakola, page 17 and 18, elaborates that Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) was the first to theorize this need for not mentioning Lazarus with Matthew and Mark, yet further, according to [Richard] Bauckham that as for Luke, certain more intimidating details like a person being raised from the (3rd day, definitely) dead may have been left out for political reasons; to make the Christians seem less threatening.

From one miracle to the next, there is one more detail of significance to the raising of Lazarus. I have heard audible discussions of professors of ancient religion at Brigham Young University (difficult to source) include mention of a belief of the Jews at that time that a person is really finally dead and the spirit is finally left after three days, hence the drama and added uncertainty that might be directed at anyone who could then raise that person alive again.  Even without that detail, this was the pinnacle of miracles publicly accepted as literal facts that could not reasonably be denied at the time (John 11:44-48).

[ and ] denote a guess of which Bauckham that Raimo was referring to.


Who are the missionaries and godly men who were helped by Keswick Theology for a fuller Christ like life and ministry? My curiosity arises from two sources.

J I Packer ( Reformed Theology ) says the Keswick Theology ruined him

Whereas

T Austin Sparks says that the Keswick Theology helped him lead a fuller life

Since reformed theologians are against Keswick Theology, I would like to get a list of missionaries and godly men who were helped by Keswick Theology for a fuller Christ-like life and ministry so that I can study their lives.

Some people I came to know are Hudson Taylor, Amy Carmichael, Oswald Chambers & Billy Graham.

Source: What is the Keswick movement, and is it biblical?

This letter of Hudson Taylor tells us how he experienced the second blessing.


Does Genesis 3 tell of a theophany? Genesis 3:8-9    (NLT)

   8 When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about in the garden. So they hid from the Lord God among the trees. 9 Then the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

[Emphasis mine.]

Is this generally understood to be a theophany? The Wikipedia article mentions that Catholics believe that this is a theophany, but doesn't say anything about Protestant denominations.

Also, a very related question (that doesn't deserve its own question) is: does this mean that Jesus had a human body before He was born?

This is an example of a theophany. People often make the mistake of equating the descriptions of God with human form. Just because God is said to have a face, shoulders, a right hand etc. does not make him human. The same could be said of a koala bear [or enter arbitrary animal here!].

There are many, many references throughout the bible to God's "body", however it is unwise to assume we know what God looks like. We shall, ultimately, see His face and know Him fully as He is.

The incarnation is different. That is the phenomenal notion of God becoming a human being, fixed in time and space.

Hope that helps.


What is the historical origin of the "Last Supper" expression? This is not a question about the meaning (self-explanatory) of the expression, but on its origin. In particular, about who, where, and when.

There seems to be nothing about this around. The New Testament does not mention these words. Wikipedia offers no work on its origin, and I find no online answer for this.

Doing a quick search of Patrology, I found the expression ultimam coenam in St Augustine of Hippo's tractatus 109 on Jn 17:20:

  Dominus Iesus iam sua propinquante passione, cum orasset pro discipulis suis, quos et Apostolos nominavit, cum quibus coenaverat ultimam coenam...

  The Lord Jesus, his Passion already approaching, after having prayed for his disciples, whom he had named Apostles, and with whom he ate the Last Supper...

So the term dates at latest to the beginning of the fifth Century, which is when St Augustine refers to it. He does use it offhandedly, though, which suggests the term was already in current use by then.


What is the spiritual significance of swearing on a Bible among the various churches and denominations? When someone is deposed in court, they are asked to swear on a Bible.

My premise is that the use of a printed Bible in this instance is derived from a pagan ritual or rituals, rather than a practice that the holy Scriptures themselves would encourage. What is am overview of Christian beliefs about the spiritual significance of the practice?

I am in no way dismissing the seriousness (legal, personal, or spiritual) of the sin of lying; I am talking about the specific act involving putting one's hand on the Bible itself, particularly in official or legal situations.

The closest question on this topic doesn't get into the significance of the printed Bible itself:

Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'?

A very straight reading of Matthew and James would lead you to believe what Jeff wrote.  But that may not be the end of it, or have anything to do at all with judicial oaths.

Christ meant, as the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers explain, to be so truthful that men could believe them without need of oath to confirm what they say. He did not forbid the use of oaths under proper conditions, when necessary to satisfy others of our truthfulness.
Oaths - Catholic Encylopedia

All the sacraments are oaths. Saying Amen is an oath. Every covenant God made is an oath.  There's no reason you shouldn't "swear to God" when you're seriously "swearing to God".  Just like you can say "God help us" or "Mother of the Saints!" without using God's name or other holy names in vain.
You shouldn't go down a path that is going to lead to perjury.

However, swearing on a Bible, or swearing on "The Precious" or your mother's ashes, etc doesn't seem necessary does it?  Almost seems idolatrous.  But, then again, you're not swearing on a Bible, you're just touching a Bible and swearing on the Holy Word of God and as long as you're not perjuring yourself and you're fulfilling your obligations, you're doing the right thing.


Was the darkness that came during Jesus's death a solar eclipse? Matthew 27:45 - From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.

I know a solar eclipse is only a few minutes, but it seems like it would match the description.

I want more info on this event specifically.  I know there is another question that is more general about phenomena (in my opinion, this is not a duplicate) but I am specifically asking about a solar eclipse during Jesus's death, and the details specifically about this.

The other question does have an answer that mentions the darkening during Jesus's Death, but I want to know specifically if the solar eclipse is Possible or not Possible.

We know that the darkness could not have been natural phenomena, but rather from God.

WHAT IT WASN'T

Christ died on Passover in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan (about our late March).  This was about the time of a full moon (the 15th of Nisan).

  Lev. 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

A solar eclipse may only occur when the moon is between the earth and sun.  This occurs only at the new moon (aka dark moon).  Thus, it is impossible for the darkness at Christ's death to be caused by a solar eclipse.

A lunar eclipse is when the sun, earth, and moon are aligned.  This may occur at full moon.  But it's not the earth that darkens, rather its the moon.

It is near impossible that the darkness was caused by some natural phenomenon like volcanic ash; the time frame is too detailed to coincide with blowing ash.  Could it have been natural storm clouds that blew in at noon and blew out at 3?  Again the time frame is far too specific.  What caused the darkness over the land when Christ was crucified?  It would be something attributed directly to God.

WHAT IT WAS

We know from scripture that when God led the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt that He led them by night in a pillar of fire and by day in a pillar of cloud (Ex. 13:21).  Good for them, but bad for the Egyptians.  For the Egyptians at the Red Sea crossing, the cloud was darkness.

  Ex. 14:20 And it [angel of God] came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, ...

We would not think that the cloud was some eclipse or ash, but rather the presence of God.  That is the pattern.  So too at the crucifixion.

Moreover, we know that darkness was prophesied.

  Amos 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:

Christ is "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. (Luke 2:32), yet here He was on the cross cursed of God, apparently snuffed out.  It was literally darkness that was God sent as He promised.


In Korean Protestantism, what is the position of Kwonsa? In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative Presbyterian denomination, there is a sizable contingent of Korean-Americans – they make up 12% of the denomination's members and have 212 churches (source).

These churches often have a position called kwonsa or kwon-sa, which, as I understand it, is for elderly women who are recognized as spiritual pillars of the church.  In the PCA, where there are no female church officers, these kwonsa are neither elders nor deacons, and thus do not have official spiritual authority.  However, I'm not sure that that's the case more broadly in Protestantism.

Thus I'd like to better understand 1) what kwonsa are, in the context of Protestantism, and 2) how the position is commonly seen to relate to "traditional" leadership positions like pastor, elder, and deacon.

That is, I'm looking for an overview answer that attempts to explain, at a high level, the role of kwonsa in Korean-culture Protestantism, particularly in relation to other church leaders.

I'm aware of the existence of a Korean Language Stack Exchange, but I ask this question here because my query is not merely linguistic, but rather primarily about how this role is understood in the specific context of Protestantism.

From Buddhist and Protestant Korean Immigrants: Religious Beliefs and Socioeconomic Aspects of Life by Okyun Kwon (LFP Scholarly Publishing LLC, New York 2003):

  Congregational Structure & Female Leadership Positions

  ... An elder takes care of one or two parishes, but he situates
  himself as a nominal lay leader in the parishes he takes charge of by
  exercising a minimal authority in the parish's religious activities.
  The head pastor appoints usually a female deacon to each parish as a
  practical leader who actually takes charge of the parish's religious
  activity.  The appointed practical leader is named as ku-yok-jang in
  Korean, which means a district leader.  This lay leadership position
  has been recently invented by the Pentecostal-line Korean churches.
  The role of the practical parish leader has been recognized by church
  officials in expansion of Christianity in Korea.  Recognizing the
  importance of the role of the practical parish leaders, who are mostly
  female, in recruiting new members, many Korean churches put an
  increasing emphasis on the position.

  Between male elders and female practical parish leaders, another
  female lay leadership position is situated.  This lay leadership
  position is called kwon-sa in Korean, the highest lay position given
  to female members in the majority of Korean Protestant churches.  The
  kwon-sa is expected to mediate, support, and encourage parish members to participate in religious activities at both the parish and
  congregational levels, but like the male elder position in many cases
  it is nominally given to the devout female elderly members.  They are
  expected to be female spiritual leaders in the congregation.  In these
  three layers of parish leadership hierarchy, another intermediate
  level female lay leader, called a kwon-chal, is situated.  The
  kwon-chal, which literally means both supervision and encouragement, has become the second-highest lay leadership position given to female
  members.  as the name of the position implies, the kwon-chal's major
  role is to encourage and support the parish members' religious
  activity participation.

  All these women's lay leadership positions have first been created by
  Korean Pentecostal churches not only to give special recognition to
  women's roles in church formation, but also to provide a leeway for
  women's lay leadership positions in churches as against the already
  existing male-centered church hierarchy.  Soon after these Pentecostal
  churches achieved a high level of success in church growth by
  developing women's leadership roles, many conservative mainline
  churches began to confer female members the same leadership positions
  for the same reason. ...


Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God? Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God?

A miracle from God through a woman.

Scriptural references please.

I'm assuming this isn't quite what you're looking for, but it would feel wrong to not mention this important miracle:

A virgin woman gave birth. Matthew 1:23-25.

It could probably be argued that everything Jesus Christ did in his life is "a miracle from God through a woman". Without Mary miraculously giving Jesus Christ the gift of life, he wouldn't have had a life to sacrifice - which would have made the New Testament a much shorter book.


How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy? This excellent question What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? | @Reluctant_Linux_User and its answers have revived some questions on my part which I am hoping to get some understanding and clarity to.

In the wake of the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, a lawsuit was filed against the Holy See to my understanding, on the grounds that the Pope was the boss of the bishops who by their actions and omissions, allowed for the abusing priests to continue abusing.

Restricting the answer to the following: Pope, Bishops, Priests, how do these relate to one another in the Church's hierarchy? What is the reporting structure like and how does that differ from a Corporate company structure headed by a CEO?

Please note that in my answer, even though the priest ranks higher than the deacon, they both seems to be responsible to the Bishop.

Please note:

The other referenced question and its answers do not fully answer:

Where in those answers does it address the comparisons with a Corporate company structure headed by a CEO?
Where do those answers explain the priests and deacons both being responsible to the Bishop yet the deacon is of a lower rank?
Where do those answers clarify that the Pope is NOT the "boss" of Bishops as understood by the secular world?
The question what are is very different from how do.

The hierarchy of the Church

The Church has a very “shallow” hierarchy that consists of the three ranks of ordained ministers: bishops, priests, and deacons. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1554.)

Relationships of priests and deacons to their ordinaries

Priests and deacons are always members either of a diocese or of a society such as a religious order or congregation. (In technical terms, they are  incardinated in that diocese or society; see Can. 265 of the Code of Canon Law [CIC].) Thus, priests and deacons always answer directly to their “ordinary,” who is the bishop, in the case of a diocese, or their major superior, in the other cases. (See CIC Can. 134.) Note that the ordinary of most societies of consecrated life is a presbyter (a priest), not a bishop. (There is a similar situation in the “ordinariates” that have been set up for persons with an Anglican background.)

Relationships of dioceses among themselves

In the Western (Latin) Church, there is very little vertical organization of dioceses. Dioceses are grouped into ecclesiastical provinces. One of these dioceses is called the “archdiocese,” and it exercises a primacy of honor over the other dioceses, which are called “suffragans.” The bishop of an archdiocese has the title of “archbishop” and “metropolitan,” but he exercises no authority outside his own diocese, except in certain very limited cases. (See CIC Can. 435-436.)

The Eastern Churches have an autonomous hierarchy headed by either a patriarch or a major archbishop. (See the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 56 and 151.) Unlike in the Western Church, the patriarch or major archbishop enjoys ordinary (not delegated) authority over his entire church.

Relationships of dioceses to the Diocese of Rome

All bishops in the Western Church, and all patriarchs and major archbishops, in turn, answer directly to the Bishop of Rome (the pope). All bishops, whatever their rank, form a kind of “college” or assembly, which, however, has no authority except when it is in union with its head the Bishop of Rome. (See CCC 881-882.)

(The same holds true for the ordinaries of the Anglican-use ordinariates; even though they are presbyters, they answer only to the Bishop of Rome. For societies of consecrated life, the situation is more complex: some answer directly to the pope; others, to a local bishop.)

The pope is not, therefore, a “super bishop,” but simply the Bishop of Rome; however, the Bishop of Rome enjoys “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (CCC 882).

It should be noted that the college of cardinals does not enter into the hierarchy as such. The title of “cardinal” technically makes the cardinals members of the clergy of the Diocese of Rome and hence gives them an advisory role to the pope. They are also responsible for electing the Bishop of Rome when the Apostolic See is vacant. (See CIC Can. 349.) Although by law, cardinals must be bishops, or must be ordained bishops (Can. 315), the rank of cardinal as such is strictly honorific.

Conferences of bishops are also of an advisory and cooperative nature, and do not enter strictly speaking into the hierarchy. (See CIC Can. 447.)

Is the Pope a CEO?

Decentralized nature of the Church

So, more à propos to the original poster’s question, if one must make a comparison of the Catholic Church to political realities, it should be thought of as a loose confederation of local churches (dioceses and patriarchates), which, however, find their unity in the Church of Rome.

Hence, although the Bishop of Rome does have both doctrinal and disciplinary authority over the entire Catholic Church, it is not his function to run the day-to-day affairs of any diocese but the Diocese of Rome (and, in fact, even the day-to-day affairs of the Diocese of Rome are managed by a vicar, or delegate). Each diocese is expected to manage its own affairs, and only cases that require some kind of special intervention are dealt with in the Holy See.

Scale of the Church

If anyone is imagining the pope as a sort of CEO of the Catholic Church, he is perhaps not aware of the sheer size of the Church: there are currently no less than 3,126 dioceses (including Eastern Rite dioceses, as well as personal and military ordinariates) and 5,309 living bishops (including coadjutor, auxiliary, and retired bishops). Worldwide, as of 2014, there are 414,313 active priests. All of these serve a Catholic population of 1,228,621,000 (according to the 2014 Annuario Pontificio).

Both the scale and the decentralized nature of the Church make it impossible for the pope to be aware of what is happening in a local diocese, unless someone informs him. (It would be similar to asking the President of the United States to oversee the affairs of the city of San Francisco; the sheer number of cities in the United States makes that level of centralization impossible.)

Delegated vs. ordinary authority

Moreover, most companies have a specific goal or objective (some product or service to provide, or perhaps many of them), and so they require a centralized and multi-tiered structure. The Church’s mission, on the other hand, is pastoral and spiritual, and so it is better for it to be run by persons who are “on the ground.” In addition, for most companies the authority structure is delegated by the owner or the board of directors; in the Catholic Church, the authority of bishops over their dioceses is “ordinary,” not delegated.


What is the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Bible? Can someone give me the run down on how the LDS church sees the relationship of the Book of Mormon to the Bible? Does it accept it in full and just continue the story? How does it make the transition?

Essentially, the Book of Mormon starts at about the time that Isreal was being scattered. It follows a prophet not mentioned in the Bible named Lehi, and his family, as they leave Isreal, and eventually travel to somewhere in the Americas. They have a copy of the teachings of the prophets with them that, as stated in 1 Nephi 5:11-14

  11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses,
  which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam
  and Eve, who were our first parents;

  12 And also a arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to
  the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

  13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning,
  even down to the commencement of the reign of aZedekiah; and also many
  prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of bJeremiah.

  14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the
  aplates of brass a bgenealogy of his cfathers; wherefore he knew that
  he was a descendant of dJoseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son
  of eJacob, who was fsold into Egypt, and who was gpreserved by the
  hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all
  his household from perishing with famine.

They follow the Jewish traditions at first, with some slight differences. There are many cross referenced scriptures, including much from Isiah. The quoted scriptures do not match word for word. Towards the end of the book, Jesus Chris visits the people in resurrected form, after he died and was resurrected. He teaches many of the same/ similar things that he taught before he was crucified.

Essentially, members of the LDS church believe that the Book of Mormon continues the teachings of the bible, but from a different point of view. They believe that the Book of Mormon was recorded on metal plates, such that it could not be destroyed or changed as easily as the paper of the bible could be changed. As there have been fewer translations and people handling the words, members of the LDS church believe it to be more accurate in it's teachings than the Bible, but that they both have the same purpose, to help a man do what God and Jesus Christ want us to do.


Do Mormons believe that we currently live near the time when Jesus would return? According to some Christian denominations, we are currently living near the time when Jesus would return to gather those selected to heaven and/or to destroy earth or the unbelievers/wicked.

Do Mormons believe that we are currently living near the time of Jesus' return?

If they do, what passages in the Bible or the Book of Mormon do they base this on?

Yes, but let me qualify that at the end of my answer.

2 Nephi 25:7-8 teaches:

  [Nephi is speaking] But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy
  … Wherefore, they are of worth unto the children of men, and he
  that supposeth that they are not, unto them will I speak particularly
  … for I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the
  last days....

The Book of Mormon was specifically written for the last days or last dispensation of time.  From D&C 112:30:

  For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are
  appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the
  power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last
  time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times....

The Book of Mormon contains a prophecy of one Zenos, describing the Lord's efforts to gather His people in the last days.  That prophecy is found primarily in Jacob 5, but from a summary in Jacob 6:2 we read:

  And the day that he shall set his hand again the second time to
  recover his people, is the day, yea, even the last time, that the
  servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power, to nourish and prune
  his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

And we believe we are called to perform missionary work because this is the last time before the Second Coming when that can happen.  From D&C 43:28 we read:

  Wherefore, labor ye, labor ye in my vineyard for the last time—for the
  last time call upon the inhabitants of the earth.

So, yes, we believe we are living in the last days before our Lord's second coming.

HOWEVER…

We are strong believers in the Lord's disclaimer (Matthew 24:36):

  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven,
  but my Father only.

Which is reiterated in D&C 39:21:

  For the time is at hand; the day or the hour no man knoweth; but it
  surely shall come.

We know these are the last days.  We do not believe anyone knows or can calculate when His coming will be.  Since we believe our Heavenly Father, His son Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals, we believe that Jesus' words as recorded in Matthew mean that even He (Jesus) does not know when He will return.  Only our Heavenly Father knows.

It is for this reason that LDS Church leaders teach we should basically live each day as if it were our last.  President Henry B. Eyring taught:

  The scriptures make the danger of delay clear. It is that we may
  discover that we have run out of time. The God who gives us each day
  as a treasure will require an accounting. We will weep, and He will
  weep, if we have intended to repent and to serve Him in tomorrows
  which never came or have dreamt of yesterdays where the opportunity to
  act was past. This day is a precious gift of God. The thought “Someday
  I will” can be a thief of the opportunities of time and the blessings
  of eternity.

Finally, please note there are many verses in the Book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants that support this belief.  I've provided only a fraction of them here.


Is there any method to prevent an unbelieving pope from being elected? Jesus did not seem to have any method to prevent a false apostle to become an apostle, as Judas has shown. (Not to imply that he could not have used one if it was the Father's will). Also, in Christianity under any denomination, there are 'weeds' that grow up with the 'wheat.'  Leaders of all kinds of different groups have on occasion turned out to be wicked unbelievers. (Matth 13:24-30)

Is there some special test or method to try and filter out the candidates for the Pope to ensure he is not a Judas? Some secret means unknown to the human nature of Christ, or at least unused by Jesus in calling Judas? If he does turn out to be a wicked unbeliever, is their a way to fire him from the office and choose another?

This is a bit like asking if the NFL has a procedure in place to prevent someone who secretly can't play football from playing as a quarterback. The answer is yes, but it's impossible to explain in full detail how this works. Here's a rough idea, though:

At the very least, the would-be pope would undergo the scrutiny of: his fellow priests, his own bishop, various parishioners, various fellow scholars, various bishops, those in the Holy See who check up on candidate bishops, priests over which he would gain authority, fellow bishops including cardinals, and the present pope. He would also spend a fair bit of his life being busy in the Church.

Then, at some unpredictable point in time, he would need to be considered not only "good enough", but the best candidate by 2/3 of the cardinals during a papal conclave. This is an event that, due to modern media coverage, can be followed by up to over a billion praying Catholics. And also non-Catholics.

The Holy Spirit surely plays no small role in all aspects of this process, a process which has been developed over a period of about 2000 years. Many of the stages are specifically aimed at attempting to ensure that the devil does not succeed in having a non-believer elected as pope.

This process was, of course, not used by Christ when he intentionally chose Judas as one of the twelve, knowing that Judas would betray him. (Judas should not to be confused with St Peter, the first pope.)

As for "firing" the pope, this is a separate question, but the short answer is: no.


According to Jesus in the New Testament, where by name are the three places one ought to worship God? Someone in The New Testament mentions two places where one ought to worship God. Jesus says that in the Messianic Era neither place will be where one ought to worship God. Which are these two places by name, and—according to Jesus in the New Testament—where will be the one place by name where the true worshipers will worship God in the Messianic Era?

The reference is presumably to this passage in the Gospel of John:

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you [plural—i.e., the Jews] say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [plural—i.e., the Samaritans] worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:20–24)

The two places mentioned here as places to worship God are:

Mt. Gerizim, which is near Sychar, the town in which Jesus had this conversation with a Samaritan woman (see John 4:4–7 and a map here). This is the most sacred mountain in Samaritan tradition, and the place where Samaritans were especially to worship God.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In Jewish tradition, this is the mountain where God is to be worshiped with sacrifices and offerings.

Jesus does not mention any physical location where people will worship God in the Messianic Era. Rather, he says that true worshipers, in a coming hour (i.e., a time that had almost come), and even in the present (at the time he was speaking, and not only in some future Messianic Age), will worship the Father (God) "in spirit and truth."
In other words, the "place" that Jesus says true worshipers will worship God, and do worship God, is not a physical location, but an inner state of spirit and mind.