What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4?

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

It is interesting that most English translations use the word "scriptures" which may seem somewhat ambiguous.  However, Young's uses specifically "Writings".

" for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,
4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,"  (YLT)

The Hebrews referred to the three sections of the OT as the Tor'ah, or the Teaching (also called the Pentateuch - the five books of Moses); the Nevi'im (Prophets); and the Ketuvim (Writings). In shorthand the TNK, or Tanakh.

"The last of the three divisions, the Ketuvim, contains poetry (devotional and erotic), theology, and drama in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (attributed to King Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles."  Source: here

Did Paul only mean the Ketuvim (Writings) or was it all OT Messianic prophesy?  Most conclude that all OT scripture prophesy of the death and resurrection of Christ is included.
Excerpt from Benson Commentary:

"According to the Scriptures — The Scriptures which foretold the resurrection of Christ on the third day, and to which St. Paul refers, are Psalm 16:10, (which Peter, Acts 2:31, expressly affirmed to be a prediction of that event,) and Jonah 1:17, which our Lord himself affirmed to be a typical prophecy of his continuing three days in the heart of the earth, and of his subsequent resurrection. "  Source: here

Excerpt from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly Genesis 3:15 Daniel 9:24 which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered. "  Source: Ibid.

1 Corinthians is held to have been written approx. 55 AD before the Passover.  As this predates even the gospels, it would appear that the NT scriptures cannot be in view here, as they would not have been circulated before this letter to the Corinthians.  Therefore the "Scriptures" must refer to the OT prophesies.
See Dating the New Testament here


How do superiors in a convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food? How do superiors in the convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food?

For example, if a religious refuses to eat certain foods prepared for him?

How do superiors in a convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food?

Generally speaking religious superiors let the cooks choose what they desire to serve as long as it follows what is written down in the constitutions of a particular Religious Order.

The rules for the various Religious Orders vary considerable.

For example, the Carthusians fast year round and never eat meat. They do however drink wine once and awhile I personally know a Carthusian at the Grande Chartreuse located in the Chartreuse Mountains, north of the city of Grenoble, in the commune of Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse (Isère), France.

Having been a Internal Benedictine Oblate for many years, I can say this all surety, that with 21 different Benedictine Congregations and a few independent Benedictine Monasteries subject directly to Rome, there are at least 21 different interpretations to the Rule of St. Benedict worldwide, concerning what Benedictines eat and in what proportions are permitted. Once again the cooks simply follow what the norms of the that particular Congregation. On feast days, those preparing the meals, occasionally will ask a superior if it would be permitted to buy some more expensive foods for a particular liturgical Feast. For example, Salmon on Friday that happens to be a Feast Day.

Some Religious Houses will also eat traditional foods stuffs that are linked to specific feasts. For example I know some religious institutions that will eat lamb on Easter Sunday or Holy Innocents' Pabulum for novices on the Feast of the Holy Innocents. I could go on and on, but this suffices as an example.

Here is an example of some liturgical blessing for Easter foods.

Most Religious Orders generally have two many courses, served sometimes with some form of salad and often ended with some form of dessert, such as fruit or something simple.. Some serve wine at their meals, while others have tea or coffee. Some simply have only water!

Many religious will often abstain from some type of food stuff, but there is generally a reason for it. Some can not eat of one dish, because of some physical ailment. Many religious will not drink wine, when it is served! No one questions another’s motives, because under normal circumstances the superior is aware of the dispositions of the members of his or her community. It also happens, the some religious in the community will be privately fasting with the permission of the superior. Religious are taught not to be too curious in this domain and simply accept what is placed before them. In some monasteries, one is obliged not to make any personal reflections about how they liked or disliked a particular meal. To do so would be a fault of chapter (of faults).

I know of no religious superior that would insist that one would be obliged to drink coffee, tea of wine at mealtime. Many will simply opt to drink water.

So many of us, are in awe of what truly passes behind the walls of a monastery or convent. That is the way they prefer it to remain. They live a life impregnated with mystery.


What is the Orthodox teaching about touching Jesus' body? I was reading answers to a question about Thomas touching Jesus. An answer came from an Orthodox person which said that Thomas was granted special permission to touch his body/wound. That person further said that it was why Jesus warned Mary Magdalene not to touch him. I would like to ask, from the orthodox perspective, who said touching Jesus was dangerous, and that Thomas was granted an exception. My question is: Is this also your position (Jesus granting exceptions) when the two women (Lazarus' sister and a prostitute) touched his feet while putting oil on them?

Jesus didn't want Mary (and others) touching him as they had before the crucifixion, because he would no longer be with them as he had been. John Chrysostom explains this in his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John. [emphasis mine]

  Some assert, that she asked for spiritual grace, because she had heard Him when with the disciples say, “If I go to the Father, ‘I will ask Him, and He shall give you another Comforter.’” But how could she who was not present with the disciples have heard this? Besides, such an imagination is far from the meaning here. And how should she ask, when He had not yet gone to the Father? What then is the sense? Methinks that she wished still to converse with Him as before, and that in her joy she perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the Flesh.

  To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with much awe, (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before,) He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, “Approach Me not as ye did before, for matters are not in the same state, nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,” would have been harsh and high-sounding; but the saying, “I am not yet ascended to the Father,” though not painful to hear, was the saying of One declaring the same thing.

  For by saying, “I am not yet ascended,” He showeth that He hasteth and presseth thither; and that it was not meet that One about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before. And the sequel shows that this is the case.
  “Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God.”

With Thomas it was another matter. When Jesus let Thomas touch him, it was a form of rebuke for Thomas' disbelief. Chrysostom again:

  Jesus again presenteth himself to them, and waiteth not to be requested by Thomas, nor to hear any such thing, but before he had spoken, Himself prevented him, and fulfilled his desire; showing that even when he spake those words to the disciples, He was present. For He used the same words, and in a manner conveying a sharp rebuke, and instruction for the future.

  For having said,
  “Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side”; He added,
  “And be not faithless, but believing.” Seest thou that his doubt proceeded from unbelief? But it was before he had received the Spirit; after that, it was no longer so, but, for the future, they were perfected.

  And not in this way only did Jesus rebuke him, but also by what follows; for when he, being fully satisfied, breathed again, and cried aloud,
   “My Lord, and my God,” He saith,
   “Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”


How do proponents of the Prosperity Gospel interpret Matthew 19:24? Matthew 19:24 (New International Version)

  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
  needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

Generally I think Christians interpret this to avoid materialism and place physical, earthly concerns below concerns about what God expects from us.

I was curious as to how people who preach the Prosperity Gospel interpret this passage. I did some googling, and I found several articles using it as a way to discredit the Prosperity Gospel. But, I didn't find a Prosperity Gospel interpretation of it.

How to people who preach Prosperity Gospel interpret this scripture?

Some won't say

Unsurprisingly, the prominent leaders of prosperity gospel theology rarely if ever address this verse, unlike their opponents. I searched for quite a while and could not find anything on this verse or similar ones from Robert Tilton, Kenneth E. Hagin, or Joel Olsteen*.

* Technically, I did find an interpretation from Joel Olsteen. According to The Babylon Bee, the Joel Olsteen Study Bible explains the meaning of this verse as "Believe in yourself". Then again, the satirical article says that it's the study bible's explanation for every verse.

Creflo Dollar

Prosperity gospel televangelist Creflo Dollar, leader of World Changers Church International, was asked point-blank about this passage in a 2007 interview with CNN. The reporter read Matthew 19:16 and Matthew 19:21-24, then Creflo Dollar gave a response. (I've removed the filler words, since he was speaking off the top of his head).

  Well first of all, when the rich, young ruler showed up, and [Jesus] said, "What you need to do is take the things that you have to sell, sell it, and then, come follow me…" It's about loving God with your stuff. If you keep reading down a couple more scriptures, it says "And he received a hundred-fold, everything that he gave, everything that he sold."

  So we talk about "is it impossible for rich people to get into heaven?" You know that's not the truth. You know rich people are gonna go to heaven just like average people. The issue there is: will you be willing to take your things and share it with other people. Again, we can't assume just because you have some things, that you automatically are not sharing with the people who need it. We invest in people's lives, not only in our community, but all around the world.

He then goes on to talk about how the prosperity his church preaches about may not necessarily be monetary, but could also be in terms of relationships or other intangibles.

The verse that Dollar refers to with his paraphrase of "he received hundred-fold" appears to be Matthew 19:29, which is indeed a continuation of the passage that was quoted, although it was not directed at the rich man like Dollar implies.

  And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

  —New International Version

So according to Dollar, Jesus' words were less about possessing wealth and more about sharing it with others, or in other words, "loving God with your stuff." He also views Jesus' promise of receiving "a hundred times as much" for following him as supporting his argument that Jesus is not speaking against wealth. Furthermore, prosperity does not have to be monetary.

Gloria Copeland

Prosperity gospel author and speaker Kenneth Copeland hasn't said anything on this that I could find, but his wife is quoted in a tweet from their ministry's official Twitter account.

  Set your affections on God's Word. Matthew 6:19-20

    Refuse to allow your affection to be on
    your possessions, business,
    treasures and holdings.
    Demand that your affections
    be set on God's Word.

    Gloria Copeland
    Matthew 6:19-20

While this doesn't directly address Matthew 19:24, the verse does begin "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth", so I think it has a similar sentiment. The point Gloria makes is that the problem isn't wealth, but rather the affection people have towards that wealth.

I would speculate that Gloria would say the issue of the rich man was not having wealth, but rather his affection towards it. Jesus telling the man to sell his possessions made it clear that he was too attached to his material wealth to focus on God. Thus Jesus' comment about a camel through the eye of a needle was more about the general attachment the rich tend to have towards their possessions, rather than about having wealth.


What is Paul meaning of "husband" and "married to another" in Romans 7:1-6 Romans 7 King James Version (KJV)

  1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how
  that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

  2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her
  husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

  3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,
  she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is
  free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
  married to another man.

  4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the
  body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who
  is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

I have two questions as regards this passage
1. Who is the "husband" in that passage?
2. What is the meaning of the words "married to another"

Paul says that the link between "those who know the Law" (v. 1) -- Jews -- and the Law (given Moses) was done away with by the death of the "husband." Paul says of a wife that "if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." (Romans 7:2.) "As long as the man (anthropos) lives" (v.1), i.e., the husband lives, the law formed by their marriage binds the two. But the "law of her husband" is thus "loosed" or "abrogated" by the death of the husband.
Paul's Greek in verse 2 meant the Law has been "rendered null and void" by the death of the husband in the marriage covenant that established the Law. (See Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (1988) at 270.) Paul means "you are released from the Law as to its demands and penalties...." (The Epistle ... to the Romans; with notes by H.J. Ripley (edited by Henry Jones Ripley) (1857) at 73.)
Paul says this particular husband's death killed off the Law between the parties. It is clear in Paul's illustration that the one who dies is the "anthropos" (man) -- the "husband."
First, Paul says the Law binds the husband and wife as long as the "anthropos (man) lives." Finally, in Romans 7:3 Paul specifies who died in the relationship: "if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;...." Paul is not talking about the wife dying in order to make his point. Paul is only talking about the husband / the anthropos (man) having died whose death then effectuates dissolution of the Law.
Henry explains that by the death of the husband in Paul's lesson, this frees us from the Law, making the Law dead to us (as this husband's death brought about). As a consequence, we are "free from" our  "master" -- the husband who died. Henry explains:
Our second marriage is to Christ: and how comes this about?.... We are dead to the law ...[and] have no more to do with it than the dead servant, that is free from his master, hath to do with his master's yoke.
Locke concurs that it was the death of the husband that Paul envisions as what supposedly frees us from the Law, not the death of the woman (or the death of the Law):
" ye have been made dead to the law," the phrase here used to express that freedom, seems to refer rather to the 1st verse, where he says, "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth," implying, and no longer, rather than to the two intervening verses, where he says, "not the death of the woman, but the death of the husband, sets the woman free," of which more by and by. (John Locke, Works of John Lock (1823) Vol. 8 at 311.)

The meaning of the words you ask about are the obvious ones. 'Husband' means the person a woman is married to and 'another' means a man who is not her husband.

So verses 2 and 3 mean

  If a woman is married to a man, then she and that man are legally married for as long as he lives, and she is not allowed to marry someone else while he is alive. But is he dies, then she is allowed to marry someone else.

Paul is using this situation as an analogy to say that while the Jews were legally bound to the Law, the death of Jesus ends that bond, just as the death of the husband ends a marriage.


Has Protestantism relegated the scripture to be the 'Subordinate Standard'? It was very necessary for the early church to stand against doctrinal errors, such as Arianism and Sabellianism but, in the doing so, some chose to state a creed (the Athanasian Creed), rather than simply make reference to original scripture and it could be argued that the Athanasian Creed came to be regarded as 'scripture'.

Since the seventeenth century the Westminster Confession (and in its other forms, the Savoy Declaration and similar) has become the so-called 'subordinate standard' by which serious Christians (who acknowledge doctrinal issues and acknowledge the necessity of taking a stand on them) state their doctrine.

But is it the case, over the past few centuries, that the Westminster Confession has, in fact, become 'The Standard' and that the scripture has been relegated to a subordinate place ?

The Free Presbyterian website argues :

  When a Confession corresponds to Scripture as an account of the Church’s understanding of what the truth of God is, it is quite out of place to suggest that requiring allegiance to the Confession is interfering with allegiance to the Word of God. For those who recognise the authority of God’s Word as the revelation of His will in every matter, a Confession of Faith is not a substitute for Scripture but a necessary expression and summary of what Scripture teaches.

FP Church.org

The Free Church of Scotland states :

  Ever since the earliest days of the church, Christians have laid out their beliefs in brief ‘creeds’ or ’confessions’ in an attempt to summarise essential Christian truths and to guard the church from error. These statements are always secondary to the Bible but they are enormously helpful. A full summary of our teaching is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Free Church of Scotland.org

The Church of Scotland goes even further :

  The full Confession of Faith was agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and examined and approved in 1647 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and ratified by Acts of Parliament in 1649 and 1690.

Church of Scotland.org

[Note the word "ratified"...OED 'To confirm or validate (an act, agreement, gift, etc.) by giving formal consent, approval, or sanction.']

So the first requires my 'allegiance' to the WC.

The second say that 'a full summary of their teaching is within it' (thus, they have not added to their teaching for three hundred and seventy years).

And the third advise me that the British Government have 'ratified' it.

Has, indeed, the Westminster Confession been accepted as 'The Standard' in the Protestant assemblies, to which the text of scripture must take a subordinate place ?

There is a particular problem with using the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) to either defend, or attack, doctrinal positions. It is that the Westminster Assembly (in the mid 1600s), and I quote:

  “…was rather reluctant to include texts and only added them after the
  catechism had been completed. In other words, the original catechism
  was not prepared from a narrow, improper proof-texting of Scripture
  but from an overall consideration of Scripture. In written work based
  on the catechism it will be a worthwhile exercise to write out the
  texts and underline those parts which specially relate to the
  catechism answer.”  Learning the Christian Faith – The Shorter
  Catechism for Today, Rowland S Ward, p4 (New Melbourne Press, 2009)

This means that catechisms based on the WCF provide lots of scripture references to be examined, so that you would find the scriptural points in support of the beliefs stated there, in abundance, while the WCF might appear to be rather short on scriptural verses. Is it possible that the quote you were given, that “Adam was created righteous,” never came from the WCF but from expanded notes in a catechism? I have searched for it from I to VII in the WCF. If, however, that phrase does occur in the WCF, the reference would be helpful. The doctrine of righteousness is certainly crucial to a correct understanding and appreciation of the gospel, yet some people would equate Adam being ‘righteous’ with his being created ‘perfect’ – without sin at the outset. To debate that is legitimate, yet to accuse someone of heresy for showing from the Bible why they disagree with the claim that Adam was created righteous is unreasonable.

For any Creed or Confession to be elevated to the ultimate authority for Christians, is heresy! More likely, some Christians just find the format easier to direct others to than picking up a Bible for themselves and going through relevant passages with another person. Perhaps they hope that by citing a Creed or a Confession, they will stop further debate. Unfortunately, that does give the unfortunate impression of basing one’s beliefs upon a Creed or a Confession, rather than by personal conviction from the scriptures.
Here is the stance that these supporters of the WCF take on scripture, creeds, and ‘subordination’.

  “Westminster Standards: confessional statements and catechisms
  developed and written by the Westminster Assembly in England during
  the years 1643-48. These standards include the Westminster Confession
  of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster
  Shorter Catechism. These documents are the doctrinal standards
  (subordinate to Scripture) in Presbyterian churches throughout the
  world.” Pilgrim Theology, Michael Horton, p 473 (Zondervan, 2011)

  Re. the WCF I.9 – “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture
  is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about
  the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but
  one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
  clearly.” “…We have already seen (I, 1-2) that Roman Catholicism and
  other false religions join in the denial that the Bible is God’s
  complete revelation. They have in common the denial of the sufficiency
  of Scripture (against which, remember II Tim. 3:15-17). These
  religions also share another characteristic, namely, the denial that
  the Bible is capable of being understood without any necessary
  reference to any outside interpreter… As Dr. Cornelius Van Til reminds
  us, ‘No human interpreter needs come between the Scriptures and those
  to whom it comes.’ This view is opposed to clericalism… Again, this
  Reformed stand does not mean that every portion is equally easy to be
  understood. What it means is ‘that with ordinary intelligence any
  person can obtain’ from the Word of God itself ‘the main point of the
  things he needs to know’ (Van Til, Intro. To Systematic Theology, p
  140). This doctrine can, of course, be abused. It is abused by those
  who cry ‘no creed but Christ!’ and then ignore the great creeds of the
  Church. In an odd way this itself is a denial of the clarity of
  Scripture, for it proceeds upon the assumption that in all history no
  one before us has been able to see the truth contained in God’s Word.
  It is precisely because we believe that the Bible is plain that we
  value the creeds. Hence, the creeds are evidence that the Bible is
  clear. The creeds represent the consensus of many, who therein
  testified that they plainly saw the same great truth revealed in the
  Bible. This does not mean that the creeds are ever on a par with the
  Bible. They must always be kept subordinate to the word of Scripture.
  They cannot be regarded as infallible. That attribute belongs to God’s
  Word alone.” pp. 18-19 of The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes by G.I. Williamson (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964).

Any Christian professing to uphold the Bible as that infallible standard, above all others, may usefully point to some Creeds or Confessions but will do damage if they infer that that is their ultimate standard, or authority.

Sadly, today, there are many Protestant denominations that no longer claim to take the Bible as their ultimate standard and authority, but that should not be the case in any Reformed groups, especially not those that accept the WCF.


What is the state of Christianity among the Huaorani people today? In January of 1956, several American missionaries (Jim Elliot and Nate Saint being the best known) attempted to reach a remote tribe in Ecuador in an endeavor that has become known as Operation Auca.  The people group, called Huaorani, Waodani, or (pejoratively) Auca, were known for being extremely violent, and when the missionaries met several of them on the beach, the missionaries were killed.

Their deaths sparked significant interest in missions, and also ultimately led to many Huaorani people being converted through the efforts of Elisabeth Elliot (Jim's wife) and Rachel Saint (Nate's sister), among others.

Now, 60 years later, what is the state of Christianity among the Huaorani?  What percentage of the people call themselves Christians?  Is there a generational gap?  Are there among them any established and/or growing churches, particularly with indigenous leadership?

I contacted I-TEC, Steve Saint's missionary organization, about this question. Steve's son Jaime sent this reply by email:

  The Waodani people today are around 20% Christ followers. We don't have any information on how that breaks down on age, though most of the older generation (over 50 years old) are Christ followers. Their churches are very different from ours in many ways. While most of their communities have some Christ followers (the church), they typically do not have organized times of worship. When they have a "service," there may be 10-20 "preachers," depending on who wants to talk. At the same time, they talk about following God's trail on a daily basis.

He also pointed me to the Joshua Project's page on the Huaoroni, which says that 40% are Christians and 0.3% are evangelicals. I asked Saint about the difference between his numbers and those of the Joshua Project, and he replied:

  Not sure why the discrepancy. I travel down to the jungles several times a year and have been going for more than 25 years. The Waodani themselves do not count anyone as a Christ follower unless they have have trusted Christ as Savior, been baptized, and the fruit of their lives shows that they are following Christ.


Do any young earth creationists believe that a change to the earth's axis tilt was God's way of shortening human lifespans? Scripture tells us in Genesis 6:3 that God saw fit to shorten the lifespan of mankind. He did something that dramatically reduced humans years from close to a thousand years (Methusala) to 100 or less. Some speculate that the flood opened the earth's atmosphere up to greater UV light and changed atmospheric pressure and those things changed the environment thus shortening human lifespans.

Recently I had a interesting dialogue with a Christian who had been taught that the Creator accomplished the goal of shortening lifespan by tilting the earth from original setting to a more extreme setting that changed "normal" to a new "Normal," which caused the dramatic climate changes and led to a much different  habitat for humanity and shortened the life expectancy. This was partially supported by scientists quoted here who theorize that the orbit and tilt of the earth causes emergence and extinction of mammals in 2.5 million year cycles.

I know the YEC Christians have much to say about the meanings of Genesis history. Have any YECs ever written about the effect of the earth's tilt on the way lifespan or other environmental decline occurred?

As indicated in this overview of YEC theories regarding the decline in lifespans, environmental changes (such as might be caused by a change in the earth's axis tilt) are not typically cited as a significant cause of the decline in human lifespans.  Environmental changes in general are seen as having only a minor effect, if any, due to the continued long life of Noah and his immediate descendants:

All positions which attempt to explain the ‘lifespan drop’ in environmental terms have another bit of data to explain, and that is the temporary persistence of longevity after the Flood. Noah was 600 at the time of the Flood, but lived another 350 years afterwards, in the post-flood atmosphere! Even in pre-Flood terms, Noah was already of moderately advanced age. One would presume that, if the post-Flood atmosphere/environment has such devastating effects on us now, then because Noah would have been instantly exposed to these same effects, it should have cut his life short much more rapidly.1 [emphasis in original]

That said, some YECs nonetheless argue that there was a change in the tilt of the earth's axis caused by some catastrophic event in the past, perhaps in association with Noah's flood. This shift is cited as evidence for YEC geomagnetism theories, such as magnetic reversals; Noah's flood itself; and methods of archaeological dating (since many ancient events are traditionally dated older than 4000 BC, the approximate year of the creation of the world according to many YECs).2
However, these theories are not directly connected to the decline in human lifespans, nor are they widely accepted even among Creationists.  Creation Ministries International writes:

Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now.3

Summary
Some Creationists do argue for shifts in the earth's axial tilt.  However, this shift is not directly connected to the change in human lifespans; rather, it is seen as evidence for YEC theories of geomagnetism and archaeological dating.  That said, many YECs regard axial tilt theories as speculative and not particularly likely.

Carl Wieland, Decreased lifespans: Have we been looking in the right place? (Creation Ministries International)
The Dodwell Hypothesis is the best-known example of this.  Bill Overn defends and applies the hypothesis in his paper, "The Tilt of the Earth's Axis."  Paul D. Ackerman suggests that Dodwell's Hypothesis explains the cause of the Flood (an asteroid striking the earth).
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.  See also Danny Faulkner's rejection of Dodwell's hypothesis (Answers in Genesis).


If Jesus is God, who/where does Jesus pray to? I realize that some of Christianity believe God and Jesus to be one being, whereas some believe them to be separate and distinct beings. I come from the background of the latter group, which reasoning I am already familiar with.

According to Christianity which holds Jesus to be God incarnate, who does Jesus pray to while He is in the Garden of Gethsemane or at Calvary, or before raising Lazarus, and at other points in His mortal life? Is it God being in two places at once, being omnipresent? Or am I misunderstanding something else?

It's obvious that Jesus is praying to the Father, as He directly addresses "Father," but what I'm trying to understand is what this really means to the group of Christianity I've mentioned.

Bonus points if you could touch on where Jesus is praying to (or rather, where God/The Father is while Jesus is praying).

There are countless works already done on Trinity. Inspired by all these existing works, here is how we may address the question to whom Jesus prays to.

Jesus never said "I am God" nor "I am the Father" but said "I and my Father are one". The New Testament always address Jesus as the Lord, the Christ, the Word of God and the Son of God.

One with Father? This word is the most confusing part. As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it. Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was impossible and I gave up.

  John 3:12 (NIV) I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not
  believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

It is not wrong to say that Jesus is God because Jesus equated himself with God (John 8:58). Jesus is the Word of God, who was with God from the beginning, was (also) God, who became flesh in order to die for our sins.

  John 1:1-18 (NIV) -Excerpt

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
  made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word became
  flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the
  glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace
  and truth. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is
  himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made
  him known.

Answer: Jesus was praying to God, the Father, who is one with Him, who is in Heaven even when Jesus the Son was on earth. Jesus never did His own will but the will of the Father. Jesus came from the Father in Heaven to earth to fulfill His mission, which was to die for our sins. After the mission assigned to Him was completed, Jesus went back to the Father and sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is now a mediator between God and man, interceding for us always and acts as a High priest for us by using His own blood as an offering to the Father.

  Matthew 12:50 (NIV) For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

  John 16:28 (NIV) I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

  Mark 16:19 (NIV) After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken
  up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

  1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV) For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

  Romans 8:34 (NIV) Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ
  Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right
  hand of God and is also interceding for us.


Is there a sect who adopt "salvation by works and exaltation by both: faith and works"? Is there a Sect or Tradition or Cult within Christianity adopts the following concept: salvation or justification by works, while exaltation or glorification by both: faith and works?.

You say (and I quote) “salvation means being blameless, doesn't deserve punishment.”  Before going any further, and in order to properly answer your question, it is necessary to briefly clarify the Christian view of sin, punishment, salvation (justification), and exaltation.  Christians understand salvation as deliverance or redemption from sin and the consequences of sin - death and separation from God.  This is accomplished:

“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1 Peter 3:21-22).

This is entirely by God’s grace – it can never be earned:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Even the faith that Christians have is a gift from God:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no-one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Any good works we do are as a result of what God has prepared for us to do, but good works do nothing to “earn” salvation.  That is the view of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
The point is that each and every person is to blame for their sins and each and every person deserves punishment.  But what God does is to impute His righteousness to those who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  The blame that we deserve has instead been put onto Christ Jesus and he has borne the punishment we deserve.  Only by having faith in what God, in Jesus, has done, can we be declared righteous before a holy and just God.

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

Likewise, justification is a free and undeserved gift from God.  Without exception, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus...   [God] justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-26).  Salvation comes only from having faith in what Christ Jesus has already accomplished.
You say (and I quote): “Exaltation means raising to a higher status and getting advantages like raising to the status of an angel.” That may be the view of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), but nowhere is there any biblical expectation that believers in Jesus Christ will be exalted to the status of an angel.  Yes, exaltation is the action of elevating someone in rank or power, and after the resurrection of Jesus he was:

“exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33) and “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel” (Acts 5:31).

The problem is that some denominations think Jesus was created by God as a mighty spirit creature, who then came to earth to be born and dwell with us, and that this Jesus is an angel.  This is where any view of being exalted to the position of an angel (or to become a god) is unbiblical and has no part in traditional Christianity.  Jesus is no created angel.  Hebrews chapter one makes this very clear.  All God’s angels worship him and he alone is the Son of God – not as in many sons, but the one, the only, Son of God – unique.
The only denomination I can think of that believes humans can progress to godhood and be exalted to a rank even higher than the angels are Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Although they have many ordinances that must be observed, they would deny that their salvation is a result of faith and works. Source:  What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation?
Edit: I have located source material from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about exaltation:

Gods have an ascendency over the angels, who are ministering servants. In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels, others are raised to become Gods. (Joseph Smith, ‘Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith’ page 312)
Doctrine & Covenants 132: 20-23: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”

The link below is from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, part of which says this on the subject of exaltation:

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7). Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng


According to Eastern Orthodoxy, does Matthew 17:20 apply to all people? In Matthew 17:20, Jesus said:

  "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

In my understanding, Jesus said these words to his apostles, not to all the people.

Jesus gave power to his apostles to cure people and to remove demons. After they failed to remove a powerful demon Jesus told them to have faith as little as a mustard seed. His words were in this context, and not towards all people.

Is this interpretation correct, according to Eastern Orthodoxy? Does this quote (Matthew 17:20) apply to all the people or just only to his apostles?

According to many Church Fathers, Christ was not, in fact, referring to the faith of the Apostles, but rather to the faith of the man who came to them when He gave this teaching.

Theophylact's commentary on the previous verses (Matthew 17:16-18):

  Do you see how the man has shifted the blame for his own lack of faith upon the disciples, saying that they were too weak to heal?  The Lord, therefore, is shaming him for accusing the disciples, saying "O faithless generation," that is, "It is not so much the fault of the weakness of the disciples as it is of your lack of faith, which, being great, has prevailed over the equal measure of their strength."  He rebukes not only this man, but everyone who lacks faith, even the bystanders.*

Thus, Christ's teaching was for all who heard Him, and not just the Apostles (to whom the teaching seems not to have even been directed).

Cyril of Alexandria (378-444) provides the same interpretation of the parallel passage in Luke (9:37-43), though the reference to the mustard seed appears later in a different context:

  The father therefore of the demoniac was rude and uncourteous: for he did not simply ask the healing of the child, and in so doing crown the healer with praises, but, on the contrary, spake contemptuously of the disciples, and found fault with the grace given them. For I brought him, he says, to Thy disciples, and they could not cast it out. And yet it was owing to your own want of faith that the grace did not avail. Don’t you perceive that you yourself are the cause that the child was not delivered from his severe illness?

* The Explanation of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (tr. from Greek; Chrysostom Press, 2008), p.149


What churches identify themselves as being Modalist? There are a number of denominations that are labeled as being Modalist, such as the United Pentecostals, and others associated with Oneness Pentecostalism whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. However, although some Oneness theologians indicate that the doctrine of Oneness and Modalistic Monarchianism are essentially the same, and that Sabellius–from whom the concept of modalism originates–was basically correct, I've yet to discover any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist by definition.

Are there any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist? Or is it a term used only by Trinitarians to label Oneness denominations as heretical?

The label modalist has been so strongly stigmatised over the millennia that we shouldn't expect to find anyone who calls themselves one now. Regardless of whether it is in reality a correct or incorrect understand of God, in our language it is basically defined as a heresy. And no one wants to be known as a heretic.

Sometimes people have reclaimed stigmatised labels (such as the LGBT community reclaiming queer), but those who believe in modalism have instead come up with new synonymous terms, one of which is the Oneness of God. A church which proclaimed that they taught modalism would scare away any potential visitors, but a church which proclaims the Oneness of God? That sounds more enticing.

David K. Bernard is the general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International. In his book The Oneness of God he plainly and openly teaches modalism, and declares that Oneness is a new synonym for it (emphasis added):

  We also explore the relationships and distinctions
  among the three terms of Father, Son and Holy
  Ghost. Do these terms identify three different persons
  or personalities in the Godhead? Or do they
  indicate three different roles, modes, functions, or
  offices through which the one God operates and reveals
  Himself? (p125)

  In a similar way, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit
  is not a separate person from the Father any more
  than a man and his spirit are separate persons. Holy
  Spirit just describes what God is. First John 5:7 says
  that three bear record in heaven; that is, God has
  recorded Himself in three modes of activity or has
  revealed Himself in three ways. He has at least three
  heavenly roles: Father, Word (not Son), and Holy Ghost.
  Furthermore, these three roles describe one God: “these
  three are one.” (p141)

  The Bible speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
  as different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes,
  relationships to man, or functions of the one
  God, but it does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost as three persons, personalities, wills, minds, or
  Gods. (p144)

  The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply
  as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost are only manifestations, or modes, of the one
  God (the monarchia), and not three distinct persons
  (hypostases). (p248)

  Basically, modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness. (p318)

  Thus Oneness is a modern term basically
  equivalent to modalism or modalistic monarchianism. (p321)

  Sabellianism. ... The doctrine is basically equivalent to modern
  Oneness. (p324)

The UPCI website says that one of their doctrinal distinctives is the Oneness of God. It also has a tract arguing for the doctrine. The words 'modalism' and 'modes' aren't used, but clear synonyms are (emphasis added):

  1. Is the word trinity in the Bible? No.

  2. Does the Bible say that there are three persons in the Godhead? No.

  3. Does the Bible speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Yes.

  4. Do these titles as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.

  13. Who is the Father? The Father is the one God, particularly as revealed in parental relationship to humanity. Deuteronomy 32:6; Malachi 2:10.

  14. Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

  46. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which was the Father of Christ? Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghost was the Father, while Romans 15:6, II Corinthians 11:31, and Ephesians 1:3 say that God was the Father. There is no contradiction when we realize that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Matthew 10:20; Ephesians 4:4; I Corinthians 3:16.

  56. Can Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John? Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous manifestations. Only one divine person was present--Jesus Christ the Lord.


How well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society? I'd like to know how well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society. How come they have the largest private garden in all Paris and located in Rue de Bac (it was originally just outskirts of Paris when this seminary was founded), sending numerous priests into the far east Asian countries? Many of them were died and executed there, Korea included in the 19th century.

Also, how did they provide money to the priests who took a nearly 10 month trip?

Their building seems very elegant as well. I don't mean to criticize things, it just seems doubtable and marvellous to me, seeing their nature as missionary works and I respect their sacrifice.

Or, do or did they get many donations to provide themselves, especially in the 19th century?

A Wikipedia article confirms that the park of the Paris Foreign Missions Society is the largest private garden in Paris.  With regard to the acquisition of the property, the article in the link below says this:

  The Seminary (Séminaire des Missions Étrangères) was created in March 1663, when Mgr. Jean Duval, ordained under the name Bernard de Sainte Thérèse and nominated Bishop of Babylon (modern Iraq) in 1638, offered the deserted buildings of his own Seminary for Missions to Persia, which he had created in 1644 at 128 Rue du Bac.

The article gives detailed and fascinating information about the history of the Seminary, part of which says:

  At the end of the 18th century, the French Revolution halted the growth of the society, which had previously been very rapid. At that time it had six bishops, a score of missionaries, assisted by 135 native priests; in the various missions there were nine seminaries with 250 students, and 300,000 Christians.  - Paris Foreign Missions Society

With regard to funding, the Society had the backing of the Church and the pope as well as the King of France.  Other income appears to have come from charitable donations.  As to how those missionaries were able to endure lengthy and often hostile postings, I can only conclude that they were made of sterner stuff than folks today.  Well educated and self-sufficient, they were no doubt able to organise the local communities and enlist help to provide for their daily needs.

When Jesus sent out his disciples, he told them not to take any gold, silver or copper with them; not even a bag for the journey, nor an extra tunic, sandals or staff.  He simply said “the worker is worth his keep.”  They would find accommodation from worthy persons in the towns or villages they went to (Matthew 10:8-11).

The missionaries sent out from the Paris Foreign Missions Society may have left France with very little in the way of material possessions, but they had the backing of the Church and the State.

Here is a useful article on the history: - Society of Foreign Missions of Paris (Catholic Encyclopedia)


How do Christians understand the existence of God in relation to the scientific concept of energy? In physics, the quantity of energy is the most fundamental aspect of existence.  All "entities" have a some sort of energy (either kinetic or potential) as an intrinsic aspect of their being.  Though people often use language that suggests that concepts or phenomena exist (e.g. "a signal propagates..."), such language is actually just short-hand for descriptions of a collection of entities.

The quantity, energy, is a measure of the ability of an entity to perform work on (i.e. to cause something to happen to) another entity.  Christians clearly believe that God causes things to happen.  Do Christians believe that the concept of energy (as understood by physics) can be applied to God?

Energy is merely matter in another form (see Wikipedia). Matter and energy are both part of the created universe, made by God (see Book of Genesis). Energy, like matter, was created by God. It is not an attribute of God, any more than height, weight or hair colour.

Obvious exception for the incarnated Jesus, who would have had energy, height and hair colour.


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg's soteriology? A common function of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners, according to Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, and the Reformed Church, among others, is derived from passages like the following:

(John 6:44 NASB) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
(2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB) "The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."
(Matthew 16:15-17 NASB) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
(2 Corinthians 2:12-14)  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

From these passages and others like them, the Christian groups above have commonly established certain functions of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the individual:

It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual becomes aware of their sin.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual gains knowledge of the identity of the Son of God- Jesus Christ.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual acquires the desire to follow Jesus Christ in word and deed.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual is enabled to act toward this knowledge and desire.
The Holy Spirit dwells within the convert as a guarantee of their salvation, empowering them to act according to Jesus' commandments regarding Christian living.

However, Swedenborg does not acknowledge that a person needs to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, nor desire to follow Jesus Christ in word, nor to adopt Christian living1, in order to be saved.
With these things in mind, my question is,
"What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg's soteriology?"

1. For the purpose of this question, let us regard the aspects of Christian living to be the worship of Jesus Christ in word and deed, Christian education, ministry to the Body of Christ, and evangelism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I work for the Swedenborg Foundation and can provide this answer from Rev. James. F Lawrence, D.Min., Ph.D. Dean of the Center for Swedenborgian Studies and also Assistant Professor of Spirituality and Historical Studies at the Graduate Theological Union. We hope this helps!

  I would say the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg is simply the divine proceeding and provides a way to understand how God as the Lord moves within us. The Holy Spirit isn't an entity unto itself, but is the active dimension of God in the present tense and refers specifically to human affairs. Thus, for soteriology (salvation) the Holy Spirit is the divine presence and force of love and wisdom available to the soul in its daily living of making choices of how to live. The sum will ultimately shape the direction and destination, but no matter where that is going the Holy Spirit is never absent. The extent to which an individual responds affirmatively to the divine will have an effect as to how intimate the Holy Spirit becomes or not, but that force field that integrates with the divine or repels the divine is determined by the individual.

Here are some passages from Swedenborg's own writings on the topic in True Christianity #142–145:

  142

  Generally speaking, the divine actions and powerful effects meant by the Holy Spirit are the acts of reforming and regenerating us. Depending on the outcome of this reformation and regeneration, the divine actions and powerful effects also include the acts of renewing us, bringing us to life, sanctifying us, and making us just; and depending on the outcome of these in turn, the divine actions and powerful effects also include the acts of purifying us from evils, forgiving our sins, and ultimately saving us.

  These are the powerful effects, one after the other, that the Lord has on people who believe in him and who adapt and modify themselves in order to welcome him and invite him to stay. Divine truth has these effects. Among Christians the Word has these effects because the Word is the only means by which Christians can go to the Lord and the Lord can come to them. As I said before, the Lord is absolute divine truth; so is everything that emanates from him. It is important to take this to mean the divine truth in connection with goodness, which is the same as faith in connection with goodwill; faith is nothing but truth, and goodwill is nothing but goodness.

  The divine truth in connection with goodness, that is, faith in connection with goodwill, is the force that reforms and regenerates us; then renews us, brings us to life, sanctifies us, and justifies us; and, depending on our level of growth and forward movement, purifies us from evils. (Being purified from our evils is the same as having our sins forgiven.)

  All these actions of the Lord cannot be explained here one by one, however. Each one would need its own analysis with support from the Word and illustrative reasoning. This is not the place for that. The reader [who wishes to know more about them] should turn instead to the topics that come later in the book: goodwill [§§392–462], faith [§§336–391], free choice [§§463–508], repentance [§§509–570], and reformation and regeneration [§§571–625].

  It is important to know that the Lord is carrying out these salvation processes in every single one of us all the time. They are the steps to heaven. The Lord wants to save everyone; his purpose is to save all people. Anyone who has a purpose desires the means to achieve it. The Lord’s coming, his redeeming humankind, and his suffering on the cross were for the sake of our salvation (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10). Because saving people was his purpose and is his purpose forever, it follows that having the powerful effects on us that were just listed is his intermediate purpose, and saving us is his ultimate purpose.

  143

  The producing of these powerful effects is the “Holy Spirit” that the Lord sends to those who believe in him and who modify themselves to receive him. The producing of these powerful effects is also meant by “the spirit” in the following passages:

    I will give a new heart and a new spirit. I will put my spirit within you and I will make you walk the path of salvation. (Ezekiel 36:26, 27; 11:19)

    Create a clean heart in us, O God, and renew a firm spirit within me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and let a willing spirit sustain me. (Psalms 51:10, 12)

    Jehovah forms the human spirit within us. (Zechariah 12:1)

    In my soul I awaited you at night. In my spirit, which is within me, I awaited you in the morning. (Isaiah 26:9)

    Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 18:31)

  And so on.

  In these passages, “a new heart” means wanting what is good and “a new spirit” means understanding what is true. The reference to God’s giving a soul to those who walk the path of salvation makes it clear that the Lord has these powerful effects on those who do what is good and believe what is true—those who have a faith that is connected with goodwill. This is also clear from the mention of a “willing spirit.” The necessity for us to do our part of the work is clear from the following words: “Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?” [Ezekiel 18:31].

  144

  We read that when Jesus was baptized the heavens opened and John saw the Holy Spirit coming down like a dove (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32, 33). This happened because baptism means regeneration and purification, and so does a dove.

  Surely anyone can see that that dove was not the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit was not in the dove. In heaven doves appear quite often. Every time they appear, the angels know that they correspond to feelings and thoughts in other angels nearby about regeneration and purification. As soon as the angels go to those other angels and start a conversation on a different subject than the one being pondered when the doves appeared, the doves immediately vanish.

  The situation is similar with many things the prophets saw. John, for example, saw a lamb on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1 and elsewhere). Surely everyone realizes that the Lord was not that lamb and was not in that lamb. The lamb was instead a representation of the Lord’s innocence. This highlights the error of those who deduce the existence of three persons in the Trinity from the dove seen above the Lord when he was baptized and the voice heard from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son” [Matthew 3:16, 17].

  The Lord uses faith and goodwill to regenerate us. This is the meaning of John the Baptist’s saying, “I baptize you for repentance with water, but the one who is coming after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16). Baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire means regenerating through the divine truth that is in faith and the divine goodness that is in goodwill. The following words of the Lord also mean the same thing: “Unless you have been born of water and spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). “Water” in this passage, and elsewhere in the Word, means truth in our earthly or outer self, while “spirit” means truth connected with goodness in our spiritual or inner self.

  145

  Now, the Lord is absolute divine truth from divine goodness—this is his very essence. We all do what we do because of our essence. It is clear then that the Lord constantly tries (and cannot help trying) to implant truth and goodness, or faith and goodwill, in everyone.

  Many things in the world could be used to illustrate this [connection between essence and action]. For one thing, we all will and think, and as much as possible speak and act, on the basis of our essence. Faithful people, for example, have faithful thoughts and intentions. People who are honorable, honest, godly, and religious have thoughts and intentions that are honorable, honest, godly, and religious. On the other hand, people who are arrogant, cunning, deceitful, and greedy have thoughts and intentions that are one with their essence. Jokers want only to joke around, and fools want only to babble their opposition to anything wise. In a word, an angel focuses and works only on what is heavenly, and a devil only on what is hellish.

  As this is true of every bird, animal, fish, and winged or wingless insect, so it is true of every creature in the animal kingdom down to the lowest level: everything is known by its essence or nature. Every creature has its instincts accordingly.

  Likewise in the plant kingdom, every tree, every bush, and every plant is known by its fruit and its seed. Its essence is bred into its fruit and its seed. It cannot produce anything that is unlike itself and its own kind. In fact, every type of soil or clay, every type of stone both precious and common, and every type of mineral and metal is recognized by its essence.


According to the Catholic commentators, was Mary the original candidate for mother of God? Is it possible to think that another woman before Mary had been asked by an angel to be the mother of God, but the incarnation did not happen at that time because she rejected the proposal?

In the other words, does the Catholic Church teach that Mary the first woman asked to be mother of God?

In Catholic teaching and theology, there is what is called a vocation1, i.e. a calling. From all eternity, God has called each one of us to be what he wanted each one of us to be. This calling is unique and unrepeatable precisely because each person is unique and unrepeatable2.

1. We define personal vocation as God's call and plan for one's entire life. cf. GERMAIN GRISEZ ON PERSONAL VOCATIONS | EWTN.
2. cf. b. Unique and unrepeatable | B. OPENNESS TO TRANSCENDENCE AND UNIQUENESS OF THE PERSON in COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

The following sample biblical passages are offered in support:

  Matt 20:23
  (RSVCE)
  23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right
  hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom
  it has been prepared by my Father.”

And

  Jn 15:16
  (RSVCE)
  16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you
  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that
  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

And

  Is 43:1
  (RSVCE)
  43 But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who
  formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have
  called you by name, you are mine.

Thus Mary was God's choice to be his Mother and now is the only choice because she said yes! And we thank God and her for that.

What could God have done if Mary had said no?

With God all things are possible3. In Catholic teaching and theology there are infinite number of ways by which God could have accomplished the redemption. We thank the LORD and his Mother for having agreed to be the New Adam and Eve.

3. cf. Matt 19:26

Please see: CCC 490ff.

Postscript

What was the calling of Eve, what was her glory?

She was the first woman, the mother of all living, among her children, Mary the Mother of God, and her Son, the Son of man4.

I am sure Eve is not complaining.

4. cf. Matt 8:20.


How do we explain Paul's encounters with disciples of Jesus in light of the Great Commission? The following passage relates the "Great Commission" that Jesus gave to 11 disciples:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20

But Paul, a man who never met Jesus during his life, seems to have taken up the mantle all by himself:

  13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the
  Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow
  arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their
  rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their
  acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough
  offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the
  root is holy, so are the branches.

In Acts 10, Cornelius comes to Peter, and he is already following God. And then Peter baptizes him. OK, but that's hardly "going out and making disciples of all the nations".

In Acts 15, Peter seems to recall that he (alone?) was supposed to be apostle to the Gentiles. He concludes by saying:

  19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to
  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For
  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So it was only then decided what the gentiles should do. Which means that this whole time, it was mostly Paul converting the gentiles. What happened to the 11 apostles? Where are their epistles? Who were they converting among the gentiles? According to the Great Commission, they should be baptizing them in the name of the trinity. Why was Paul given the job?

Is part of the explanation that the Great Commission was added later to the Gospel of Matthew?

Throughout the Gospels, the apostles at times seem absurdly hard-headed and unable to understand what Jesus is telling them. This only continues in Acts, and it seems that the author wants readers to think the apostles slow to understand. But the Holy Spirit had his own ideas for the church, and the apostles were blown along. I don't think the argument about Matthew's ending being added later is valid since Luke's ending is similar: Jesus says, "Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47)

Then in Acts 2, the disciples are gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. "Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem." (Acts 2:5) People from all nations are there, but they all happen to be Jews! Can you see why it may not have occurred to the disciples yet that the Gospel is to be preached to Gentiles? But God wasn't done. He brought a Gentile, Cornelius, to Peter in Acts 10. It was puzzling at first, but you can almost see the light-bulb above Peter's head as he describes his acceptance of Cornelius' conversion (Acts 10:34-39,47):

  I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)— you know what happened throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced: with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of all the things he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. ... No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

It's to this incident that Peter refers in Acts 15:7-9 when he says, "God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith."

Paul reports that the apostles accepted him as one of their rank (Galatians 2:7-10; also reported by Luke in Acts 15:22-27):

  When they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.

So yes, it seems that there weren't large-scale missions to the Gentiles until Paul came along. But there was Philip and the eunuch from Ethiopia, Peter and Cornelius, and so on.

The question that then arises (and is implicit already in your original question) is, why didn't the other apostles start preaching to the Gentiles once they realized it was the mission of the church? There are a few angles to this question.

First of all, Paul never went on his missions alone. In his letters he frequently mentions Apollos, Barnabas (who is also a Jew), Mark, Timothy, Titus, and Silas. Mark, incidentally, is also affectionately mentioned by Peter in one of his epistles. This is definitely not even close to an exhaustive list of his fellow laborers.

Secondly, just because we don't have Biblical evidence of the original 12 apostles' missions to the Gentiles, doesn't mean no such missions happened. But most of them do have extensive traditional biographies (hagiographies) that place them in exotic far-away lands preaching the Gospel. Perhaps most famous is Peter himself (becoming bishop of Rome) and Thomas (carrying the Gospel to India). And traditionally John ended up residing in Ephesus. Of course, John and Peter both have NT epistles attributed to them, written to the whole church. So do James and Jude, Jesus' brothers. And John also wrote Revelation, which is replete with passages about the church being comprised of both Jews and Gentiles and people of all nations, tribes, and tongues. So it seems clear that even if Paul was the one primarily responsible for carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles, others were doing it too.

Thirdly, even if the other apostles' primary work was among their own people, what's wrong with that? Usually when a missionary preaches to a certain people, his chief goal is to raise up leaders who can communicate the Gospel to his own people. Africans most effectively preach to Africans, Polynesians to Polynesians, Americans to Americans. Why wouldn't Jews be the most effective instruments of conversion to Jews? Why shouldn't Jesus' Jewish followers aim to convert their fellow Jews? In the same way, when Paul visited various cities, his main goal was to plant a new church whose leaders were from that city. He also affirmed that the Gentiles were "ingrafted" into Israel (Romans 11), and that the Gospel was to go to "the Jew first, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16)

So a few points should now be clear: 1) The apostles were slow to understand the nature of God's mission to the Gentiles. 2) The apostles accepted Paul's mission to the Gentiles. 3) The apostles and other believers participated in that mission once they understood it. 4) It is better (more effective) for individuals to witness to their own culture than to another.


What is the role of Lucifer in the Heavenly realm? Lucifer means "bearer of light". Would this means that he bear Jesus who revealed himself as the Light or the scriptures are speaking of a different light?

Scriptures, Church Fathers and Saints teach that Lucifer is only a "cherub" but Book of Ezekiel chapter 28 described the beauty and intelligence of Lucifer plus mentioned that he was "anointed" (Ezekiel 28:14)

  Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth

What is the role of Lucifer in the heavenly realms before his fall according to Catholicism?

Does the anointing given to him means additional role aside from bearing the light?

It may appear that I am inquiring numerous question, but the intention is simply to have a clear picture of the totality of Lucifer's role in the heavenly realm before his fall.

What is the role of Lucifer in the Heavenly realm?

First of all, the Church Fathers do not believe that the name of Lucifer is the proper name of the Devil. However in Catholic tradition the Devil has many names including Lucifer.

In any case this question deals with much speculation since the Church has yet to pronounce on anything concerning this subject in a definitive manner.

  The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

  The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4). - Lucifer (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

As for what the Devil did in the Heavenly Realm, the Catholic Encyclopaedia) may have at least a partial answer.

  The language of the prophets (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) would seem to show that Lucifer held a very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy. And, accordingly, we find many theologians maintaining that before his fall he was the foremost of all the angels. Suarez is disposed to admit that he was the highest negatively, i.e. that no one was higher, though many may have been his equals. But here again we are in the region of pious opinions, for some divines maintain that, far from being first of all, he did not belong to one of the highest choirs - Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones--but to one of the lower orders of angels. In any case it appears that he holds a certain sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion. For we read of "the Devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), "the dragon and his angels" (Apocalypse 12:7), "Beelzebub, the prince of devils"--which, whatever be the interpretation of the name, clearly refers to Satan, as appears from the context: "And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils" (Luke 11:15, 18), and "the prince of the Powers of this air" (Ephesians 2:2). At first sight it may seem strange that there should be any order or subordination amongst those rebellious spirits, and that those who rose against their Maker should obey one of their own fellows who had led them to destruction. And the analogy of similar movements among men might suggest that the rebellion would be likely to issue in anarchy and division. But it must be remembered that the fall of the angels did not impair their natural powers, that Lucifer still retained the gifts that enabled him to influence his brethren before their fall, and that their superior intelligence would show them that they could achieve more success and do more harm to others by unity and organization than by independence and division.

  There is no need to discuss the view of some theologians who surmise that Lucifer was one of the angels who ruled and administered the heavenly bodies, and that this planet was committed to his care. For in any case the sovereignty with which these texts are primarily concerned is but the rude right of conquest and the power of evil influence. His sway began by his victory over our first parents, who, yielding to his suggestions, were brought under his bondage. All sinners who do his will become in so far his servants. For, as St. Gregory says, he is the head of all the wicked--"Surely the Devil is the head of all the wicked; and of this head all the wicked are members" (Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est; et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui.--Hom. 16, in Evangel.). This headship over the wicked, as St. Thomas is careful to explain, differs widely from Christ's headship over the Church, inasmuch as Satan is only head by outward government and not also, as Christ is, by inward, life-giving influence (Summa III:8:7).

The following articles may be of interest:

Is Satan a seraph or a cherub?
Biagio da Cesena: “Pope Paul III joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell!”
Angels: From the Teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas


How do the Orthodox and Catholics understand the spiration of the Holy Spirit? The following are definition(s) of SPIRATION (source):

1
a obsolete :  the action of breathing as a creative or life-giving function of the Deity

b (1) :  the act by or manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son

(2) :  the relation subsisting by virtue of this procession
2
obsolete :  the action of breathing as a physical function of man and animals

The following are additional definitions of "spiration"(source):

(obsolete) the act of breathing
(obsolete) an inspiration
(theology) the work of the Holy Spirit
(theology, obsolete) the life-giving breath of God

How do Orthodox and Catholics understand the spiration of the Holy Spirit?

The begetting of the Son is to some degree understandable (person from another person by begetting) but concerning the Holy Spirit, what makes him who is a divine person come from a divine person? Both Latin and Eastern theologians call it "spiration" but what exactly is the spiration of the Holy Spirit? Please explain.

NOTE

This is not talking about the Filioque but to the Spiration itself.

The Catholic Perspective

I first ran across the word "spiration" in the discussion of the Holy Spirit's relation to the Trinity, found in Aquinas' Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 27). Aquinas has just finished talking first about God as an individual being, and then has begun discussing what it means for God to be a Trinity.

He begins by talking about language in the Bible which seems to indicate that the Son and Spirit, whom we recognize as God, have proceeded from God (e.g. John 8:42 "I came from God"). The procession of Son from Father, Aquinas concludes, can be thought of as analogous to the way that a thought or a word proceeds from the mind, and yet is in a sense part of the mind. He considers it to be "generation", in the sense that (just as in sexual generation) what is generated bears a fundamental similarity in essence to what generates.

What about the Holy Spirit? he then asks. First, he establishes that this procession of Son from Father is not the only procession in God:

  Procession exists in God, only according to an action which does not tend to anything external, but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 27, Article 3)

That is, "procession in God" comes from God, and terminates in God. The Son is one such procession, just as our words and thoughts proceed from us, and terminate in us. But there is another type of procession, he says. Our intellect produces our thoughts; but our desire—our wants, our ability to choose—produces love. Love also proceeds from us, and terminates in us; though it may influence our actions. In the same way, Aquinas concludes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God, and terminates in God—from the love the Father and Son have for each other.

So, the last part comes, and the one that directly addresses your question: what should we call this kind of procession? Is it generation, as the Father generates the Son? Aquinas says No:

  We must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.

  So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.

  As in creatures generation is the only principle of communication of nature, procession in God has no proper or special name, except that of generation. Hence the procession which is not generation has remained without a special name; but it can be called spiration, as it is the procession of the Spirit.

That is: what's "real" about thoughts, the products of the intellect, are their similarities to what's being thought of—we create a mental image of an apple, and we know it to be a mental image of an apple because it's like an apple. It's this similarity, as I mentioned, that leads Aquinas to call the process "generation". But what's real about the products of the will, Aquinas points out, is not that they're similar to their focus, but that they lead toward their focus. The difference between a mental image of an apple (the product of the intellect) and a desire for apples is that one produces something like an apple, whereas one produces an impulse to go get an apple.

For this reason, Aquinas concludes, it's not appropriate to call this sort of "procession" generation. But, he says, we really don't have any other word for that kind of relationship; so we make up a name, and call it spiration.

A BRIEF NOTE ON THE ORTHODOX VIEW

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, generally speaking, take much less of a structured philosophical approach to details of Church teaching. In particular, they don't worry so much about exactly how it is that the Spirit comes from the Father. Instead, they focus more simply on the Scriptural texts that talk about the Holy Spirit, considering the exact philosophical framework much less important than the personal encounter with the Spirit. Thus, though they developed the concept of "spiration" (which they call προβολή, probolē: "a throwing out"), there's less emphasis in Orthodox theological tradition on philosophical analysis of what this process means and how it takes place, and more emphasis on the sacred encounter with the Spirit in and through the Sacraments.


What do proponents of "Free Grace" theology believe about the salvation of Judas? "Free Grace" theology is a strand of Evangelical soteriology that holds that sanctification does not necessarily follow the conversion and justification of a person – that is, those saying that they believe in Jesus do not need to become obedient disciples of him in order to be saved.

This view is certainly controversial, and rejected by many prominent Evangelicals, both Arminians and Calvinists (cf. Lordship salvation controversy).  One difficulty with the view, it seems to me, is associated with the salvation of Judas Iscariot.

The Bible refers to Judas Iscariot as a "disciple" of Jesus (John 12:4), but at the same time it seems to indicate that he was not saved (Matthew 26:24, John 6:70).  According to Free Grace theologians, is Judas Iscariot an example of a "carnal Christian," someone who "believes in Jesus" but doesn't obey him, and ultimately goes to heaven?  Or do they explain Judas in some other way, such as that he was saved and then lost his salvation, or that he was never saved?

Here I'm focusing on modern Free Grace theologians, like L. S. Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and Bob Wilkins.  If they take different approaches to this question, I'd like an overview of their views.

Related: How do Arminians handle the case of Judas?

I have never heard anyone argue for the salvation of Judas before, but I believe that grace is free, and that justification is by grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone, according to the Scriptures alone...

The Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born (Matthew 26:24)
'But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and would betray him (John 6:64).

I take from these verses that Judas was not justified by returning the silver, nor was he condemned expressly for taking it in the first place.  It was his lack of belief in Jesus as Messiah that led him to betrayal.  His betrayal merely revealed his lack of belief, and for that he is condemned:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)


What is the "veil" that covers the heart when the Old Testament is read? 2 Corinthians 3:13-18 (NIV)

  We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent
  the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their
  minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the
  old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ
  is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers
  their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken
  away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
  there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the
  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with
  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Paul is speaking here about a "veil" that covers the hearts of people (probably the Israelites) which prevents them from seeing the glory of God when they read the Old Testament.

What exactly is this "veil" that Paul speaks of? What exactly does it conceal? Does it still cover the hearts of people? Is there any possibility that this "veil" still covers the hearts of some Christians today?

Moses, after speaking with God, had a shining face.  When he came out from speaking with God he would give the people God's commands under the Law with the glory of a 'shining face' which they feared with trembling and fright.  Before the glory faded, signifying the non lasting nature of the covenant under the law, Moses would put a veil over his face. He was hiding something, not God's glory but its fading.  This means the nature of the law under the old covenant, especially its temporary aspect, was not revealed fully and openly to the people but hidden.  Moses was not trying to deceive them, making them think that his face always shining but was simply doing whatever God required of him.  Possibly it would made no sense to the the people to clearly see at that time in progressive revelation that the law was merely a 'fading glory' when first introduced. That would be counter-productive according to God's purpose of that stage of history.

Now Paul is grabbing this old fact about the veil and transferring the symbolism to the Jews, for although the gospel had come and superseded the law, Christ superseding Moses, yet they still clung on to the law thinking its glory will 'never fade'.  Now the gospel is declared 'openly' with no hidden parts because it will never fade or need something in addition (not like Moses who put a veil over the temporary nature of the law). Yet the Jews were not seeing it. It must therefore be a veil upon the heart, i.e. a stubborn unbelief blinding their minds from seeing the truth of the gospel and the temporary nature of the law.

Sin blinds the mind and so even carnal Christians have a certain kind of veil making them unable to see the glory of the gospel.  That is why Paul writes to the Ephesians:

  I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength. (NIV, Ephesians 1:18-19)

For all unbelievers this veil is thick and damming, not just blurring the vision:

  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV, 2 Corinthians 4:4)

In conclusion the veil is the ignorance to spiritual truth by which sin blurs the mind of a believer or totally blinds the mind of a sinner under the bondage of the Devil.  This covering of the eyes through ignorance is metaphorically called a veil.