What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical? John Piper has said that open theism (i.e. the notion that God himself changes over time and can choose to be ignorant of His own future if He so chooses) "is an attack, however unwittingly, on the cross and on the work of the Spirit as our only hope of persevering faith and salvation."

What is the basis for this assertion?

The fundamental assertion of Open Theism is a fairly simple proposition - it posits that God experiences time in a fashion not unlike that of mere mortals. Unlike the more mainstream understanding of God's relationship to time - namely that God does not exist in time, nor is He constrained by it, in Open Theism, God, like man, is unaware of what the future actually is. In and of itself, that is not particularly radical or heretical - but the implications of that statement twist theologians into a lot of knots.

Prior to Creation, for example, it would have asserted that God did not know what His world would look like.  It is not that he was unable to create any possibility (and that term is important for Open Theists), but rather that until he implemented any given possibility, it was not known.  Asserting such a framework opens God up to the ability to form relationships, to learn, to love, and to grow as it were, precisely because he is not omnipotent.

And therein lies the crux of Piper's issue with Open Theism.

In asserting that God can grow, change, and be open to relationship, it also has the effect of making him less than omnipotent.  Omnipotence itself is not a central theological point, but it is widely held, especially in evangelical circles. If God either cannot or will not be aware of his own future, then he has cut himself off from a form of power and knowledge.  He must then, thus, by choice or by nature, be less than all-powerful.
Additionally, Open Theism, in opening God up to change, fundamentally must also deny the doctrine of immutability - sometimes called impassibility - or the doctrine that says, God does not change.  If God can change, immutabilitists contend, then God cannot be perfect - for things that are perfect are not capable of becoming "more perfect" or "less perfect."
Beyond that, if God is constrained by time in the same way we are, his eternality is also called into question.  If God can change, then there can be a time in which God is different.
Calvinists, of course, would also say that predestination becomes impossible under such a framework. While Calvinism is by no means universal, it is significant (especially amongst Evangelicals), and is a doctrine to which John Piper personally subscribes.
Finally, Open Theism calls into question the Unity of the Trinity, for if God can change over time, then he could, in theory, have different "parts" at different points in time - the heresy of partialism.  If God can change, then the Members of the Trinity could, for example, disagree - a logical conundrum that would have most Trinitarians scratching their heads.

In short - it's not that Open Theism is, in and of itself, heretical - but its natural consequences lead to the overturning of many established doctrines that, if overturned, would be heretical.  It's a huge leap that changes a lot of what we "know" about God, and is therefore viewed with suspicion.


Why does God punish people? Suppose one was to believe God exists and God gave us free will, and that God punishes those people who sin.

If God gives us free will, why punish those that exercise their free will in a certain way? If God has given us free will, why does God punish those who choose to sin?

Why give us free will, if we are going to be punished for "not following God's commands and will for us"?

Firstly God's punishment is being held until the judgment due to the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.

Secondly our free will is given to allow us to make our own choices so that God will know at the judgement bar who loved him and who did not as John 14:15 says

  "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Just because we can choose doesn't mean there are no consequences of our choices. The commandments were given not to restrict us but to free us from sin and if followed will lead to a better and happier existence here on earth.


Earliest case of pointing to heaven as consolation and hope to loved ones I know of a few early church writings that can be understood as saying we go to heaven when we die. But that is not what I'm asking. Rather, I'm looking for the first known case (post NT) where, in the context of consoling those left behind, we are told the deceased is in heaven.

For example, when Paul was reassuring the Thessalonians about those that died before Jesus returned in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 he points them to Christ's second coming and the resurrection.

Said a different way, when did the emphasis on the deceased being in heaven now, rather than their future resurrection, become the message given to those that remain with the intention to give them hope and peace? When do we first see the initial response to grief being "he's at peace in heaven now" rather than "he will be raised again"?

I am representing this as a shift, or change of emphasis, simply due to my research showing the resurrection to be the common response at the time of the NT: 1 Thess 4, 1 Cor. 15, John 11. Regardless how you read those passages, the question remains, when was the emphasis explicitly first placed on heaven.
Again, it must be in this context. Not just speaking generally on what happens after death, or even the author speaking of his own death, but when the author is consoling others.

While the following passage in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Typho the Jew doesn't mention consolation, it does establish that by the second century, some people were teaching that the deceased go straight to Heaven. It also suggests that at that time, the teaching was considered heterodoxical. The strength of Justin's language may actually be surprising to most Christians, since he refers to the doctrine as "blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish" and warns his audience that people who teach such things should not be thought of as Christians.

  Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this truth, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are only called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.


Is it necessary to be a Christian to be saved? Is it necessary to have a Christian faith to be saved and not go to hell?

Is it possible for a Muslim to go to heaven?

Or do the bible specifically say that they are all going to hell (Muslims, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Non-Believers)?

My question is based on our current teachings (after Christ).

Acts 4:12

  Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Likewise:
John 14:6

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Biblically speaking there is no other way for salvation to occur. Even Jesus asked the Father in Mark 14:36 , if there was any way that he would not have to suffer, to please take that path. There was no other way, and so "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not parish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world. But that the World may be saved through Him."


Does the Roman Catholic church recognize LDS baptisms? According to some of the answers in this question, the Roman Catholic church recognizes baptisms that use water and follow the Trinitarian formula, even if they are not performed by a Catholic.

Baptisms in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as follows:

  “The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ
  to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has
  presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him
  or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize
  you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
  Amen.

  ”Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again
  out of the water.“

Source: Doctrine and Covenants 20:73–74. see also 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, and  Handbook 2, 20.3.8.

Therefore, does the Roman Catholic church recognize LDS (Mormon) baptisms as valid, or would a Latter-day Saint need to be re-baptized to become a Catholic?

For Baptism to be valid requires three things: form, matter and intention.

Form refers to the words, which must refer to baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. LDS baptism meets this criteria.

Matter requires the use of water. LDS baptism meets this criteria.

The Intention must be to do what the Church does. For this reason baptism in other Christian churches, or by lay persons, or even by non-Christians is valid if the intention is to do what the Church does. A baptism in a play at a theatre, or by children horsing around in a pool,  would not be valid as the Intention would not be there. A baptism by a lay catholic against canon law would be illicit but not invalid, provided it was deliberate and intentional..

In July 2001 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the LDS (Latter Day Saints also called Mormon) understanding of Baptism was so different from the Catholic understanding that the intention was not the same.  The congregation said that the Catholic Church could not accept Mormon belief that "God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Therefore the Roman Catholic Church believes that when Mormons baptise they are not intending to baptise into the Christian Faith, as understood by Rome.

Two out of three is not enough.

So, no the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise LDS baptism as valid. A Mormon is able to receive Catholic Baptism and, if wishing to become Catholic, must do so.


What is the Orthodox Position On Lack of Veneration for Mary in NT Epistles? I have been exploring joining the Orthodox Church.  I understand that a reverence and honor for the Theotokos is not a bad thing.  If it was good enough for the archangel at the annunciation, it should be good enough for us. That said - I was wondering how the Orthodox Church explains the lack of veneration for Mary in the NT Epistles?

In addition to the Annunciation accounts in Luke, we might also consider Luke 11:27-28, where Jesus declares his mother blessed not because she is His mother, but rather because she heard the will of God and carried it out.  Likewise the examples of His obedience to her as a child and at the Wedding of Cana (Luke 2:51, John 2:3-10) and His care for her even near the moment of His death (John 19:26-27).

I think your specific question is answered by the broader question of why not everything taught in the Gospels seems to be discussed in the Epistles of the New Testament.

Within the Orthodox faith, the Gospels are seen as central to the entire Bible.  The Gospels, wrote Archbishop Averky Taushev:

  comprise the very essence of the law of God's new covenant with mankind, for they show us the salvific events of Jesus Christ's life and His divine teaching.1

"Everything we need to know for our salvation," one Orthodox priest I know states during almost every sermon, "is contained in the Gospels."

The Epistles, on the other hand, are an "interpretation of the teachings of Christ, as applicable to various situations in life."2  Father Lawrence Farley writes of the Epistles:

  The epistles witness to this corporate reality, and give examples of how Christian life is lived out in this body.  We do not need a divine rule book outlining what to do in every conceivable situation.  For that day to day direction we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The epistles give us something more valuable than a book of instructions.  They give us models, glimpses of life, slices of apostolic reality to taste and feed upon.  If we didn’t have the Holy Spirit, no doubt a comprehensive rule book thundering away would be helpful.  But since we do have the Holy Spirit, the epistles fit our need precisely.

Also relevant here, I think, is the fact that each Epistle in the New Testament addressed some specific set of issues that were causing conflicts for believers.  Paul wrote the Romans to help them understand how they should relate to Jews and non-Christians; he wrote to the Corinthians largely to address divisions within the community and address immoral behavior; he wrote the Galatians because they were backsliding back into Judaistic practices; etc.  We might conclude that since nothing seems to be written regarding how one should be respecting Mary (who was probably still alive at the time), then apparently no one was going around insulting her, claiming she wasn't a virgin, etc.

The Epistles are not viewed within the Orthodox Church - I think it is correct to say - as some corpus of dogma that needs to be appended to the Gospels (along with Acts and Revelation) to create a sort of comprehensive manual of systematic theology.  In the Orthodox view, this turns the Bible into a kind of pseudo-Koran.

1.The Four Gospels, p.xiv
2.Ibid., p.xiv


What do Southen Baptists believe about Jesus' dual nature? It's Catholic Dogma that Jesus was one man with two natures.  I was reading an answer to a question on this site where a brother in Christ of the Southern Baptist persuasion was talking about "the man Jesus". Is this just a figure of speech or does it hearken back to the days of Arius when it was fashionable to talk about Jesus being sometimes God?

Your question may have been in response to one of or possibly more of my answers, and so I have taken the liberty of giving you my understanding, based on my years of Southern Baptist teaching. I cannot speak for the Southern Baptist Conference since I have not personally studied all of their doctrines and you must understand that what I say is based on my years under the tutelage of Southern Baptist ministers and laymen.

That having been said, the concept of Jesus Christ in his tenure on Earth which as I understand it is that Jesus, in his Deity, is Spirit, and existed from Eternity as is said in:

  John 1:1 and 2  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2  The same was in the beginning with God.

And this Spirit being did voluntarily, in response to the desire of the Father, came to Earth, inhabited a human body, lived and died, and physically rose from the dead; to atone for our sins. This was done because God (the Trinity, father son and Holy Ghost); also known as the Godhead, so loved his creation; both human and animal; that they were willing that the son of God suffer and die then rise again to eternal life; so that man might also rise from his fallen state to be given God's great grace of again obtaining eternal life in God's Kingdom as in the words of Jesus himself:

  John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That is how I understand Southern Baptist concept of Jesus. As far as speaking of the man Jesus, my intent there was and is to conceptualize that human body as separate from the Deity which is the Spirit Christ (the son of God).

Of this concept I am confident; Christ (the Spirit being) came down from Heaven to inhabit an earthly body which was born of the virgin Mary.

This is my interpretation of the Scriptures based on what I understand, was a separate creation of God in the form of the Holy Spirit, and placed in Mary's womb to be born in human flesh. That Human flesh had all of the characteristics of any other human. and differed from us only in that he was blessed with the mind and will of the Spirit which is a third part of the Trinity and exists for all eternity in the form of the son of God.

It is central to my belief; as I understand Southern Baptist doctrine, That Jesus (the man or the physical body that Jesus inhabited), physically rose from the dead in eternal life and physically ascended into Heaven, where he now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us against the accusations of Satan.

There is much more to my concept of Southern Baptist Doctrine, but that pretty well covers my understanding of Jesus the man.

Perhaps someone more versed in Southern Baptist Doctrine can correct any misgivings I have espoused.

I must thank you for your question as it has given me cause to study the Southern Baptist doctrine further so that I will be less likely to give someone a false concept.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Hope this helps.


Why is Mary Magdalene the patron saint of hairdressers? Why is Mary Magdalene the patron saint of hairdressers and when was the first time she was assigned this role?
From Wikipedia:

Patronage
Apothecaries; Kawit, Cavite; Atrani, Italy; Casamicciola Terme, Ischia; contemplative life; converts; glove makers; hairdressers; penitent sinners; people ridiculed for their piety; perfumeries; pharmacists; reformed prostitutes; sexual temptation; tanners; women

To answer the "when" question, the exact date is unknown (patron saint assignments were not decided by official decree, but rather were adopted by people over time), but the association dates back to at least the Middle Ages.
As alluded to by previous answers, there are two theories on "why" question.
Theory 1: anointing Jesus' feet
The first is that the association derives from the Gospel of Luke.  Pope Gregory (reigned 590-604) popularized the idea that three women described in the Gospels - Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1-19; Luke 8:2; 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1-18), Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42), and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-50) - were all the same person.   (Later the story of the adulteress saved from stoning by Jesus [John 7:53-8:11] also came to be associated with Mary Magdalene.)
Because of this association, Mary was usually depicted as having long hair in medieval art.  Naturally, a woman always depicted with long, flowing hair is a good choice for hairdressers to adopt as a patron saint.

A 14th century depiction of Mary Magdalene at the cross of Jesus
A medieval legend reinforces the idea that her hair had become to be seen as her key trait.  In the legend, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus bring the Gospel to France.  After spreading the Gospel, Mary retires to a cave to pursue a contemplative, solitary life.  Over time, her clothes wear out but miraculous her hair grows to cover her entire body, preserving her modesty.

Mary, covered in hair, being lifted up by angels
Theory 2: actual hairdresser
An alternate theory is that Mary Magdelene's actual profession was that of a hairdresser, or at least that she was associated with the profession from a very early date.  There are two references in the Talmud to a Miriam megaddelah nashaia (Mary, the plaiter of women’s hair).  While it is debated whether this Miriam (Mary) is actually the same person as Mary Magdelene, it does raise the interesting possibility that "Magdelena" does not refer to a place name, Magdala, as traditionally thought, but rather a profession, megaddelah.  Since surnames weren't in use yet in the first century, people were often given nicknames to distinguish them from others with the same name.   Such nicknames could refer to a place of origin, but could also refer to a profession (among other things), so the theory is at least plausible.
Certainly it would a funny coincidence if Mary's nickname just happened to resemble a word she later came associated with for completely unrelated reasons.


Do pre-tribulational, pre-millenial theologies reconcile with Jehovah's Witnesses In this thesis there are many assertions made.  One of them is that the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, as regarding the return of Christ being 'multi-staged', shares a common origin with the pre-tribulational, pre-millenial theory of the 'rapture' that is becoming prevalent in many Protestant denominations.  This theology is often called Dispensationalism and is becoming very common within Evangelical congregations such as non-denominational churches, Baptist, Pentecostal, and other charismatcs, especially in America.
This 2016 survey indicates that nearly half of American Evangelical pastors believe and teach premillenialism and 36% are pretribulational as well.  The survey included Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches.
This question is directed more towards a theological school of thought than any particular denomination.  If I must ask of a denomination then I am asking primarily of those denominations which hold to Dispensational theology; particularly those teachings of a multi-staged return of Christ with the first return being invisible.  How do these theologies reconcile the apparent common source of theirs and the Jehovah's Witness eschatology with their strong opposition to the bulk of JW theology?
There is no assertion being made that Protestant dispensationalists and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same thing eschatologically, but that the two eschatologies appear to share the same origin.  To be clear, I am asking Protestant dispensationalists to respond regarding the common roots of dispensational eschatology and Jehovah's Witness eschatology alleged in the thesis linked above.

Do pre-tribulational, pre-millennial theologies reconcile with Jehovah's Witnesses?
As far as I can ascertain, the answer to your main question must be “no”.  However, there is an element of common ground between Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses when it comes to the date of what is described as Christ’s “parousia” or invisible, heavenly presence.

History: Adventist Nelson H Barbour believed that Christ returned invisibly in 1874, although Adventist William Miller had previously claimed the second coming was due around 1843.  Barbour and his group rendered 'coming' as 'presence' and came up with the view that the Second Coming was an invisible event.  Charles Taze Russell and Barbour believed that Christ's invisible return in 1874 would be followed (in the spring of 1878) by the Rapture.  When the Rapture failed to materialise, Barbour came up with 'new light' on this and other doctrines, but Russell was not persuaded.  NOTE: Barbour and Miller were NOT Seventh Day Adventists.

Seventh Day Adventist Beliefs:  Adventists believe the second coming of Christ will be literal, personal, visible and worldwide.   Jesus will resurrect the righteous dead and to then take all of the righteous back to Heaven with Him, as His Bride, to take part in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in His Father's House. The Bible teaches that the entire world, including The Bride, will have to experience the Final Tribulation of three and one-half years before Jesus Christ returns the Second time to receive His Bride.  Adventists believe in a third coming of Christ to resurrect the unrighteous dead.  This is when the Holy City, New Jerusalem, will descend to the earth with all the righteous inside of it.  https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental-beliefs/

The SDA post-tribulation/pre-millennial view of the rapture and the tribulation bears no resemblance to what Jehovah’s Witnesses expect to happen although the Witnesses fully expect that the majority of them will have to go through the tribulation.  While researching the official Jehovah’s Witness web site for information on 1914 and dispensationalism, I found a 1985 Watchtower article, part of which says this:

The January 1, 1914, issue of The Watch Tower left room for this development, stating that although “the Year 1914 is the last one of what the Bible terms ‘Gentile Times’ . . . we are by no means confident that this year, 1914, will witness as radical and swift changes of dispensation as we have expected....  Also among those getting a blessing would be what the Bible describes as “a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.” Not until 1935 was it fully understood that this “great crowd” would be composed of persons “that come out of the great tribulation,” that is to say, those who abandon Satan’s organization and take their stand on God’s side, so as to survive the execution of God’s judgment. For some five decades now, the work of gathering this “great crowd” has been proceeding in accordance with Jehovah’s purpose. We can rejoice that divine judgment will not be executed until this lifesaving work has been completed.—Revelation 7:9, 14.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1985321?q=dispensation&p=par

The work of gathering the “great crowd” of persons “that come out of the great tribulation” continues, more than eight decades since 1935 – but the great tribulation is not here yet.  Here is another quote with regard to what is called “the Gospel dispensation” and “the new Millennial dispensation”:

However, the Watch Tower issue of December 1, 1894, said: “But as that work of organizing the church of the new Gospel dispensation was no part of the harvest work of the old Jewish dispensation, so the present harvest work or reaping of the Gospel dispensation is also separate and distinct from the work of the new Millennial dispensation now drawing on. . . . It is plain that the forming of a visible organization of such gathered out ones would be out of harmony with the spirit of the divine plan; and if done would seem to indicate on the part of the church a desire to conform to the now popular idea of organization or confederacy. (See Isa. 8:12) The work now is not organization, but division, just as it was in the Jewish harvest proper. (Matt. 10:34-36) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1985203?q=dispensation&p=par

As it turns out, this “visible organization of such gathered out ones” has continued from 1894 till now – 125 years – and the “new millennial dispensation” is still some time future.  I mention this because it illustrates how expectations pre-1914 and post-1914 concerning the tribulation and the millennium continue to evolve.
This 1993 Watchtower article https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1993041 discusses the official Jehovah’s Witness view of the “rapture”, Christ’s “presence”, being “caught away” and survival for those who are left behind.  The section “Caught Away- How?” quotes from 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “Afterward we the living, who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with the Lord.”  It then says this:

As in the case of faithful early Christians, death as a human is necessary for them to be united with Christ in heaven.... Upon dying in faithfulness during Christ’s presence, each one of the remnant of spiritual Israel instantaneously receives his heavenly reward. “In the twinkling of an eye,” he is resurrected as a spirit creature and “caught away” to meet Jesus and to serve as a co-ruler in the Kingdom of the heavens. But what about all others worshiping Jehovah? As the end of this wicked system approaches, will they also be caught away to heaven? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1993041

Speaking of those Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not have a heavenly hope and who will be alive when the tribulation period starts, the article says this:

By exercising faith, you may also be among the survivors of the great tribulation, privileged to welcome back the millions who will be resurrected to life on earth. And what a joy it will be to live under God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ and his co-rulers, who will have been ‘caught away to meet the Lord’ by being resurrected to life in the heavenly realm!  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1993041#h=22

A more recent publication (October 2019) had this to say about how they view the great tribulation and what will happen to those of the “anointed remnant” class, those who have a heavenly hope:

14 During the great tribulation a change will take place regarding the brothers who take the lead on earth.  At some point, all anointed ones who are still on earth will be gathered to heaven to share in the war of Armageddon.  This means that the Governing Body will no longer be with us on earth. However, the great crowd will remain organized.  Capable brothers from among the other sheep will take the lead. We will need to show our loyalty by supporting these brothers and by following their God-given direction.  Our survival will depend on it!  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/stay-faithful-through-great-tribulation/

“The timing of the gathering indicates that all anointed ones will be in heaven before God’s war of Armageddon begins. In heaven, the 144,000 co-rulers with Christ will receive authority to share with Jesus in wielding “an iron rod” of destruction against all enemies of God’s Kingdom.” Source:  2014 Jehovah’s Witness publication God’s Kingdom Rules, chapter 21, page 228.

To sum up with regard to the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Jehovah’s Witness beliefs regarding Christ’s “Second Coming”: Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus second “presence” happened in October 1914 when he became King.  This was not a literal “coming” because this event was invisible and only they understood what was happening in the heavenly realms, namely, that Jesus began to rule as King from heaven.   After the tribulation period Jesus (who is known in heaven as Michael the Archangel) will bring judgment on all who oppose him and who persecute his people (Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Jehovah’s Witness beliefs regarding the “Rapture”: Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that their “anointed remnant” (those of the heavenly class who are alive at the time of the tribulation) will be taken up into heaven as spirits, all other Witnesses will have to remain behind and go through the tribulation period and the battle of Armageddon when they will be rescued from harm.

Source documents: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/stay-faithful-through-great-tribulation/  Paragraphs 14 and 17 explain how the resurrected anointed ones (including the Governing Body) will return to earth with the angels.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1993041 says they will be “caught away” as spirits.
Additional material: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/great-tribulation/
Correction:  15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” * (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.  Source: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150715/rapture-anointed-great-tribulation/
Conclusion:  From what I have read I can only conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not subscribe to a multi-staged return of Christ.  They say Jesus the man is dead – forever dead; that Jesus was not resurrected with a body; he is a spirit and it is Michael the Archangel who returns.  Jehovah’s Witnesses do not subscribe to a conventional pre-tribulational, pre-millennial theology.  They may believe that a few thousand of them will be taken up to heaven at some point, but they do not say if it will be before or during the tribulation period. However, it will happen before Armageddon and the Millennial Reign.  The vast majority of Witnesses will have to go through the entire tribulation waiting for Armageddon when they will be "rescued" by the heavenly forces who destroy all of God's  enemies. The survivors will not be "raptured" or go to heaven - they expect to live forever on a paradise earth.


According to Catholicism, does God create new angels? In Judaism there are many Rabbis that preach that we (humans) can create an angel, and some say God creates angels out of a river of fire in heaven, and they worship him.

Does the Catholic Church have something to say about this, since it not only adheres to the scripture, but also to tradition?

The short answer is that the Church does not have a definitive teaching on the O.P.’s question: whether God can create “new” angels. However, the perennial philosophy that is the basis for the Church’s theological reflections suggests that, although God has the power to create as many angels as He wishes, from our point of view, the creation of the angels is already “done.” See the fuller answer below.

Man certainly does not have the power to create angels. Angels are, by nature, far superior to man. No creature can create another creature, much less a creature superior to itself.

The Church’s teaching on the angels and their creation

According to the Catholic Church, God is certainly the creator of the angels. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

First of all, the angels are pure spirits; that is, they do no have bodies, as we do, and are free from limitations that a body entails. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 328-330.)

Angels and their relationship to earthly time

On the level of official teaching, the Church does not address the O.P.’s question directly. However, using good theology, based on sound philosophy, one can draw some conclusions.

Time is relative to the one who experiences it

Since angels do not have bodies, as we do, their experience of time is entirely different from us.

Moreover, God is the creator of time; hence He is entirely outside of time. (See CCC 205.) He is also utterly one and simple (see CCC 202). Consequently, on God’s part there is only one act of creation, which identical with His very Essence. (See, for example, Summa theologiae [S.Th] Ia, q. 13, a. 7, 1um and ad 1um [the first objection and the answer to that objection].) That single act produces many effects—namely, us creatures—but the act as such is only one.

Therefore, it is an anthropomorphism to think of God’s creative action as occurring in time. The effects of that action take place in time, but the act as such is eternal: it is, ontologically speaking, God’s very Essence and Being.

What exactly is time?

It is useful, then, to take a moment to consider what time actually is. Aristotle defined time as “the measure of change according to before and after” (Physics IV, 11, 219b1-2) a notion fundamentally taken up by both St. Augustine (see Confessions, XI, cc. 1-28, especially chapters 24-26) and Aquinas (see In IV Phys., lc. 15-23). In other words, creatures experience time to the degree that they experience various types of changes (“movement,” in the classical terminology).

(It is interesting to note that all of our differing ways to measure time all consist in taking a particular kind of change or movement as the basis for measuring other movements. For example, we use the motion of the moon and the Sun as the basis for the length of our days and months; and other regular changes found in nature—such as the oscillations of cesium atoms—to make more precise measurements.)

How different kinds of creatures experience time

As a consequence, different kinds of creatures experience time in different ways, depending on the kinds of changes that they are capable of experiencing. Human beings, like all material creatures, undergo constant interactions with their environment. Hence, they experience time as a continuous movement.

On the other hand, angels, being pure spirits, do not experience a “continuous” time, but, if you will, “discrete” time. It depends on the changes that can take place in them: the decisions of their will, the knowledge infused into them, and so on. Since they are not material creatures, they do not have an “environment” to interact with; and indeed, their entire existence is characterized by a discrete and finite number of actions. (These actions, however, are far more perfect than our own actions, and hence although the number is finite, what they accomplish through those actions is far greater than we ever could in our lifetime. Aquinas makes an extensive treatise on the angels in qq. 50-64 of the Prima Pars of the Summa theologiae. The most relevant questions are 54 and 59, on the angelic intellect and will.)

Angelic time is simply not in the same “continuum” as our own time—it is entirely extrinsic to ours.

That does not prevent angels from interacting with us: but they are looking at our continuous time, as outsiders looking in, so to speak.

From our perspective, God has already “finished” creating the angels

What that means, from our perspective, therefore, is that God already “finished” creating the angels, even “before” He created the material universe. (In reality, “before” and “after” are very misleading here; were are talking about kinds of time that are simply incommensurable.)

Even if God wanted to create more angels—and God is quite capable of creating as many as He wants, even an infinitude, if He wishes—it would seem to us (who exist in our continuous, material time) that He has “already” created them.

That is not a defect on God’s part, as if He were “incapable” of creating angels in earthly time, but simply reflects the difference in nature between angels and men: angels, being pure spirit, are simply not bound by earthly time.

Conclusion

God has the power to create as many angels as He would like: even an infinitude. However, angelic nature is so different from ours (since angels are pure spirits unbound to bodies) that their experience of time is simply incommensurable with ours. Hence, it would be anthropomorphic to say that God creates new angels in our own, earthly time. From our perspective, the creation of the angels is already “done”—but this is not because God cannot create “more” of them, but because our time and their time do not overlap and is of a different nature.

As far as man creating angels, that is impossible, as only God has the power to create anything (in the strict sense—all that we humans can do is rearrange things that have already been created). See CCC 295-301 for an overview of the Church’s teaching on creation.


Interpretation of the scripture "One Lord, one faith, one baptism?" Ephesians 4:5 states there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Some Christians interpret this to mean that a single denomination (with its beliefs, doctrines, and practices) constitutes the "one true faith." Other Christians interpret this to mean that a group of denominations (with their collective beliefs, doctrines, and practices, which are sometimes different or even contradictory) constitutes a collective "one true faith."

What are the respective arguments for these two interpretations of the scripture?

The Bible doesn't talk about denominations, nor did Jesus or any of the disciples start any denominations. Denominations came from the disagreement of men on the interpretation of the Word of God. For this reason, I do not believe this passage can refer to denominations, which didn't exist when Paul wrote it.

Paul insisted in various places on the unity of the doctrine. For example in 1 Timothy 6:3, he insisted on the supremacy of the teachings of Jesus:

  If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,

In Galatians 1, he warned against false teachings:

  6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

In 1 Corinthians 1, he warned again about disagreements between teachers and the importance of recognizing yourself as a disciple of Christ rather than as belonging to a specific teacher (or "denomination", as we would call it today):

  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I think Ephesians 4:5 is then quite clear.

There is one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ;
There is one faith, the faith transmitted by the apostles (that includes Paul);
there is one baptism, the one transmitted by the apostles.

All other teachings are to be rejected.


Catholic Encyclicals/Bulls in Which Jews and Freemasons are Mentioned? I need a list of papal encyclicals/bulls in which both Jews and Freemasons are mentioned in the same document.

Pope Leo XIII is your man.  He definitely didn't like the Freemasons, and with good reason if you read the document, seems like they're not as benign a force in Italy as they seem over here .

  We wish it to be your rule first of all to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is; and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing men and enticing them into their ranks, and as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their acts. As Our predecessors have many times repeated, let no man think that he may for any reason whatsoever join the masonic sect, if he values his Catholic name and his eternal salvation as he ought to value them. Let no one be deceived by a pretense of honesty.

Humanum Genus

But I think that's the only Free Masonry specific Encyclical there is. The Pope does say that his predecessors have repeated his statements, so there's probably something.

Nothing in there tying Freemasonry to the Jews though, not that I'd expect there to be.


What Biblical justifications are used for having separate denominations? From my reading of the Bible, I have come to understand that unity among Christians is a good thing.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Psalm 133:1

  Behold, how good and how pleasant it is  For brothers to dwell together in unity!

These, and other passages of scripture, seem to emphasize the importance of Christian unity and love while de-emphasizing the importance of distinctions.  In light of these passages, how do Christians justify separating themselves into so many different denominations?  Are there any Biblical justifications given for why having such division is preferred over unity?

Rather than answer all the questions I'm going to stick with the main question.

Q. What is the Biblical justification for different denominations?

A. What is the Biblical justification for one Church?

There should never have been different denominations (or branches of belief) but as Paul stated here in Eph 4:1-16.  There is only one body of believers, the Church.

...

  3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

  4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
  of your calling;

  5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

  ...

  14 That we henceforth be no more
  children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
  doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
  lie in wait to deceive;

  15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up
  into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

  16 From whom
  the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
  joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
  every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in
  love.

Paul did grapple with the beginnings of denominations in his day too.  It was because the believers brought in traditions and beliefs from the old testament law that they thought were still required, such as circumcision.

Why did it occur? because of many reasons.  But you could say simply that it's because the people who have started these denominations haven't believed and followed the one who is to guide us into all truth.  So instead they have substituted it with corrupted understanding and taught this corruption to others who do not have the knowledge.

Another reason can be because of poor translating.  There are many words added in some translations that are not there in the original text.  These words are added to help clarify the text but sometimes they change the meaning.  At least the King James writers had the integrity to italicise added words.

Even with poor translation though, the Holy Spirit can still guide you into truth.  And the only way to be guided is to walk in the spirit as in Romans 8.   We need to study the text and ask the right questions. Did you not know that you can ask the Holy Spirit in you questions about what you're reading?  In the end it comes down to a relationship with Jesus. Not everyone in the church has a relationship.  This is why Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 -

  21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
  kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in
  heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
  in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name
  done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
  you that work iniquity.

It's because it's all about the relationship.


How were people baptized in the name of Jesus without the Holy Spirit in Acts 8? My question regards this passage:

  Acts 8:14-17 ESV Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

My understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that it comes with believing in Jesus immediately like it says in Ephesians 1:

  Ephesians 1:13 ESV  In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

What's up with this case in Samaria?

NOTE: I've looked at this question: Why was it necessary for some people to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands and others just received it after believing? and feel that it asks specifically about hand-laying, which I am not, so its answers don't quite answer mine. I'm just wondering why the believers didn't get the Holy Spirit even though they had become believers.

You are correct that all believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them from conversion on. However, Samaria is an instance of Spirit Baptism.

Luke consistently presents a pattern of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being distinct from and subsequent to salvation1. These texts in Acts 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 19 form the basis of the Classical Pentecostal "Doctrine of Subsequence." (Subsequence is one of the core distinctives of the Assemblies of God. They address it in the Statement of Fundamental Truths #7.)

That receiving the Spirit is distinct from salvation can be seen numerous times in Acts.

In Acts 1:4,5, Jesus himself, while speaking to those who had trusted in Him as Messiah and Lord, said "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." The Baptism in the Spirit was yet to come for these believers. Drawing the distinction even more clearly between receiving the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit, prior to this (John 20:22), Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Now, He is saying that their Baptism in the Spirit is yet to come.
Before the first outpouring (Acts 2), the 120 are specified as "disciples/believers" (Acts 1:15) and "brethren" (1:16), that is, they were already baptized believers but the Holy Spirit had not come upon them (Acts 1:5, 8) but were now receiving the Spirit.
As you mention in Acts 8, belief and Spirit Baptism are presented as distinct.
In Acts 9:17, the believer Ananias calls Paul "brother" before Paul receives the Spirit.
In Acts 19, the recipients follow Paul's command for water Baptism in Jesus' name (19:5). It is only after this, (vs 6) that the Holy Spirit came upon them.

An example against this might be Cornelius' house. There receiving the Spirit (Acts 10:44-46) comes before water Baptism and at the same event as conversion.2 Since no amount of time is mentioned, it cannot definitively be stated as subsequent. However, the pattern in the rest of Acts shows a period of time to be normal.

The Holy Spirit indwells all believers at conversion, but the baptism in the Holy Spirit is shown in Acts to be distinct and subsequent almost all of the time.

1 "...a temporal separation is typical of the outpourings of the Spirit in Acts," Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Baker Academic, reprinted 1990, pg. 65.

2French L. Arrington, (The Acts of the Apostles: an Introduction and Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988, pg. 113) states that these men were already saved before Peter arrived. He argues this based on 1) how Peter leaves out any mention of conversion or repentance in his sermon and 2) that the phrase "you know" is also used by Paul to emphasize doctrine that the recipient already accepts. However, as helpful as this interpretation is to the Doctrine of Subsequence, Peter does give them a call to repentance when he says "everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (vs. 43). Also, in 11:14, Peter says God sent him to take Cornelius a message "through which you and all your household will be saved." Thus, the household was not saved before the sermon.


In which other churches do Roman Catholics recognize apostolic succession? The Roman Catholic Church derives much of its claim to legitimacy from the teaching of "apostolic succession". Other churches also believe that their priests derive their authority in an unbroken chain of succession. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this of some other churches, accepting that the Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops have apostolic succession. Is this true? And which other churches would have their claims to apostolic succession recognized by the Roman Catholic Church?

I am not really satisfied with any of the answers given here, because they do not seem to answer the question.

First of all, apostolic succession refers to the fact that all bishops (that is, all those who have received the fullness of Holy Orders) can trace their Holy Orders all the way back to the Apostles. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 77-79. I will observe that the documentation detailing episcopal consecration only goes back to the Renaissance; however the Catholic Church holds that today’s Holy Orders form an unbroken line to the Apostles.)

Therefore, apostolic succession refers neither to doctrinal orthodoxy, nor to communion with the Bishop of Rome: it refers to the validity of holy orders in a given Church.

In addition to its own Holy Orders (both in the Western and the sui-iuris Eastern Catholic Churches), the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Holy Orders (hence of apostolic succession) in the following churches:

All of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
All of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eretrian Orthodox Churches, as well as the Armenian Apostolic Church).
The non-Ephesian Churches (such as the Assyrian Church of the East).
The Polish National Catholic Church.

(Source: Wikipedia article “Holy Orders (Catholic Church).”)

Notably absent from this list are the members of the Anglican Communion. As Pope Leo XIII taught in his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, the Catholic Church holds that the Anglican Church lost its ability to consecrate bishops in the 16th Century, when it changed its rite for episcopal consecration. (Some individual bishops may have found ways to be ordained validly, but it cannot be affirmed with certainty as a body.)

It is possible that other smaller groups, such as the Old Catholic churches, maintain valid Holy Orders, but there is no official recognition of such groups by the Holy See.


What Christian denominations/groups believe in biblical prophecies based on number of The Beast being 666? The actual Number of the beast is only mentioned in Revelation( 13:18).  In the Greek manuscripts, the  number is rendered in Greek numerical form as χξϛ, 666, or sometimes literally as "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave the beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

Which Christian denominations/groups that believe in biblical prophecies based on number 666?

"Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" - the fear of the number 666.

The Bible Rev. 13:15-18 requires the reader to interpret: "Here is Wisdom, Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast." and the questioner is asking about any possible interpretations, such as obtained by adding letter values or gematria. That includes the catholic church because in Quia Maior, the encyclical calling for the Fifth Crusade, Pope Innocent III identifies Muhammad with the beast of Revelation.

  Given enough time (and armed with the numerological tricks of the
  Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and English alphabets), one can make
  anyone's name add up to 666. . . .

  Likely candidates have been Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Robespierre, Napoleon
  Bonaparte, George Washington (and his alleged Illuminati double, Adam
  Weishaupt), Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Franklin
  Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry S. Truman, Prince Charles, King
  Juan Carlos of Spain, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, Osama Bin
  Laden, and both George Bushes - and, oh, I almost forgot, all the
  Popes.

Source: 666: What's in a Number?

The christian mystic Aleister Crowley claimed himself to represent 'the Beast 666' based on his interpretation of a Hebrew Kabbalah teaching (see link above).


Biblical passages that relate to Christian unity versus doctrinal accuracy Christianity is currently split into several denominations due to differences in doctrine. It seems that these denominations consider their doctrinal differences more important than Christian unity. That is, they are unwilling to merge with other denominations if that means compromises in their doctrine.

Are there any good Biblical passages that relate to this issue? Specifically, passages that either talk about the importance of Christian unity or about the importance of doctrinal purity.

Does the Bible say that God wants Christians to unite? Or does the Bible says that it is more important that Christians do what they think God has asked them to do?

To the extent that there are denominations who do not have doctrinal differences, what Biblical passages address this issue? Are there passages that suggest there should be separate organizations despite doctrinal agreement?

God's will is that we Christians would be one and love one another.

  John 17:20-22 (ESV)
   20"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

  John 13:34-35 (ESV)
   34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

But, even if we should be one, we should not be the same.

  1 Corinthians 12:12-21 (ESV)
   12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
   14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
   21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

The passage above makes hints that as we are different, we might start fighting and   excluding different members. This actually had happened in Corinth, and this was one topic in 1 Corinthians.

  1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (ESV)
   12What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

To me it looks as though unity is very important. Of course there is still need for church discipline.


What is the basis for the idiomatic understanding of "three days in the tomb" as two nights and a day? The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"
There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.
Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.
A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.
To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing a common figure of speech/colloquial language.

I wonder if anyone who thinks that it was common could provide examples to support that belief; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.

Unfortunately I can't find the original source (yet), but according to this commentator, the Jerusalem Talmud states that a portion of a day was as a whole.

  The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.).

The Jerusalem Talmud is also known as the Palestinian Talmud.

PS As the answer to the OP question, the reference (the argument amongst the early sages like Eleazar ben Azariah) is to the command "be ready on the 3rd day" (Ex. 19:15) with day defined earlier in Gen. 1:5, 8 (dark/evening and light/morning).  So, some sages thought in terms of periods (dark or light) to make a day.  When is the third day?  Some thought at least 4 periods, some 5, some 6 (Ishmael).  One said always 5 (Aqiva).  Following are examples.

4 PERIODS

before sunset (1 period and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (or 3 total) and day 2)

night (1 period (or 4 total) and day 3)

5 PERIODS

night, morning (2 periods and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (4 total periods) and day 2)

after sunset (1 period (5 total) and day 3)

6 PERIODS

night, morning (2 periods and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (4 total) and day 2)

night, morning (2 periods (6 total) and day 3)

So, traditional Christianity counts the sign of Jonah as 4 periods to mean 3 days (Fri-Sun).

Some count the full 6 periods (3 days and 3 nights) in ways like Thursday after sunset to Sabbath at sunset.

What is totally wrong is the newish theory of death on Wednesday to either resurrection at Saturday sunset (7 periods or 4 days) or Wednesday to Sunday resurrection (9 periods or 5 days).


What is the Biblical basis for born-again virginity? The concept of being born again as a virgin spiritually (although physical virginity is no longer intact) has been a catchphrase I've noticed in the past few years. What is the Biblical basis for this trend? I would like to know if Jesus specifically had anything to say about this. From what I understand, He pardoned the sexual sins of Mary Magdalene, for example, but did not mention the need to be a born-again virgin, merely chaste from that point forward (not re-claiming virginity). If this does not come from the Bible, where did the idea for the need to be a born-again virgin originate?

TL;DR

“Born-again virginity” or “second virginity” is not a concept that is
expounded by any of the Biblical authors. It is not formal doctrine,
nor is there any requirement in the Scriptures to become a virgin again.

Idolatry = Adultery; Holiness = Virginity

Among the most prominent analogies of man's relationship to God in the
Old Testament prophets is that of marriage. The relationship that a
woman has to her husband is likened to the relationship that Israel was
to have with God. Israel was not to "prostitute" herself with other gods. (E.g. Jer 2:20, Ezek 23, Hos 2:1-13)

It is in this sense that virginity is primarily spoken about in the
Bible. Many times, a “virgin” is used synonymously with “unmarried
woman” because one was expected to be the other, but where virginity
(or the lack thereof) is discussed at any length, it largely has to do
with the relationship of a husband and wife or metaphorically with
Israel’s relationship with God (or the church’s relationship with
Jesus).

Second Virginity

Second virginity is not likely to be a part of any group’s formal
doctrine, because it is not an idea that originates in the Bible.

I have only heard the concept addressed in the context of sexuality
regarding people who recognize that they’ve made mistakes sexually,
but want to return to the (spiritual and emotional, primarily, but
perhaps to a much lesser extent, physical) pristine and clean state of
innocence/virginity so that if/when they marry in the future, their
relationship with thier spouse will not be further hindered by the
sins of their past. Though it is impossible for someone to actually
regain their innocence, the idea is a call to return to appropriate
and healthy behavior (abstinence until marriage). In part, the idea is
probably meant to give some measure of hope in recovery for people who
have forsaken their sexual innocence but long to return to it for the
sake of their own integrity and as a “gift” to their future spouse.

I think this is an application of Christian concepts. I don’t know if
one could make a case for it being a need or requirement. I have
only heard it spoken of as if it were desirable for the sake of
having a healthy marriage in the future.


Why did they have such a good memory? Possible Duplicate:
  How was documented dialog observed?

I have to say, my memory is not very good, but it is not too bad. (God helps me :) ). But I have a few questions concerning how the Bible authors were recalling that what has happened ,

1) How did Moses know the dialog between Abraham and God? Did Abraham write a biography, and how could Moses remember the conversation so clearly?

2) More stunningly, if go and read Gospel of John, he remembers the LONG conversations, that is very very long, super well. For me I could hardly remember very clearly what happens last week, not to say ACCURATELY recite all a person said last week.

So is it correct by saying, even though a book of the Bible is affected by the character of its author, the writing style of its author, but basically the Bible is written down as an absolutely miracle?

In the case of Moses, God spoke with him directly (e.g., the forty days on Mount Sinai) and instructed him in everything he was to write on the two stone tablets, as well as the scrolls of parchment.

In the case of the apostles, God gave them the Holy Spirit, and regarding the Holy Spirit, it is written (John 14:26),

  But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.


Were the Jews expecting God Incarnate? Christians believe Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. (Isaiah 7:14)

Furthermore Christians believe that the only Son of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Apostles Creed)

And since Christ = Messiah and Lord = Elohim, Christians believe the Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity with two natures, fully man and fully divine.

Did the Jews, who are still in expectation of a Messiah, expect that when He came that the Messiah would also be God, or were they expecting someone less magnificent?

Yes they were, in fact the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up.


How do non-sacramental denominations identify and ordain pastors and other leaders? I'm aware that not all Christian denominations call the leaders/pastors of local congregations "priests" (as Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans, and apparently some Lutherans do, perhaps among others); but it seems that most of them, at least, have some sort of person (called a minister, elder, pastor, or other similar term) to shepherd local congregations.

For those that do, but that do not have a specific sacrament of ordination/holy orders, is there some other ecclesiastic procedure that marks out a person as having that stature within the denomination - perhaps an "ordination" but not a sacrament in the Catholic sense?

If this is scoped too broadly, let me apply it specifically to those denominations in the Reformed tradition.

Baptists and many evangelicals reject the notion of a sacremental "priest" that is somehow in essence different than mere laity, but still ordain their ministers.  A "priest" confers the idea that the person is specially endowed with the ability to stand between man and God. Those who subscribe to the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" do not believe that any intermediary is necessary.  That said, they still typically note that God gave "some to pastors and teachers" and so that gets recognized.

Ordination (such as my own), typically comes about after:

a candidate has expressed a desire to be set apart for ministry,
has some amount of training (although not always a degree), and
a vetting process wherein a board (usually from outside the local body) examines the candidate

The ceremony itself typically involves:

a sermon (come on, we're talking preachers here!) about what ordination means
a laying on of hands
a prayer
a proclamation that the ordinand has been set apart for God's work.

I've seen the laying on of hands restricted to one elder, be open to all ordained visitors in attendance, or even to all in the congregation.  Like most baptist & nondenominational things, there is no set liturgy - but it feels better if you have the elements above involved.

My ordination (like most Baptist ordinations) says that it was conferred by Long Branch Baptist Church. Technically, no other church, be they Baptist or otherwise, is under any compulsion to honor it, but in practice, I have never had an issue. One will note, if one reads their diploma, typically it just states that the professors here have found the student worthy of a degree.  Technically my ordination is my church recognizing that I have been set apart by God in the same way. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no human authority that can remove it, other than my church.

When I went to the courthouse to be given the right to marry couples, the certificate was considered valid. Later, when an Episcopalian lay member of a prison ministry group questioned my clergy credentials (I was retired, and he was being a bit of a jerk), another Episcopalian priest vouched for my credentials, saying I was duly ordained. In interfaith settings, most sacramental priests understand the difference between a Baptist minister who has actually used his ordination and the guy off the street that just bought an ordination certificate online.  In practice, I tend to tell people I am ordained and have a Masters of Divinity, since not all Baptist ministers do. It is a cue to those who understand the value of the M.Div, although in the IT world, a lot people still think I just got a certificate.  When I tell them it took 8 years, and that I pastored a church for 4, then I get the "ooh"'s of recognition.


What word describes the heresy of "Jesus is the Son of Himself"? Preface

This question is the result of a personal thought experiment and is for curiosity sake.  I do not profess nor believe the following statement.

Background

Those who believe in the Trinitarian Nature of God believe that God is Three persons in co-equal majesty and substance in one God.  It is accurate to say that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God.  But in the conventional Trinitarian belief, it is wrong to say that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, etc.

However, suppose a heretic accepts the first statement (each person is God), but rejects the second one (that the persons can substitute one another).  An inference that could arise is the following:

The Son of God is God
The Father is God
Therefore Jesus (The Son) is the Son of himself.

Question

Is there a word for the Heresy that describes the third step of the syllogism above?

I think this could be considered a type of modalism: the belief that there is only one person of God, who appears in different times or contexts as the father, son, and holy spirit, but does not by nature have true relations between these. In modalism, "father" and "son" are only labels for human benefit, not true descriptions of how God is, and so you could get the nonsensical conclusion that Jesus is his own son.


Who is Sheshbazzar? Is he the same person as Zerubabbel? The Bible says:

  KJV Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.

But in the following chapters that name scarcely turns up. Instead Zerubabbel is portrayed as the prince of Judah in the place of Sheshbazzar.

Are they the same people with two names? I would like an answer from biblical and historical sources.

The following came from Lexham Bible Dictionary entry on SHESHBAZZAR authored by Noah M. Marsh, proposing that the most widely accepted explanation is that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were two different people.  The entry includes biblical and historical sources.

SHESHBAZZAR (שֵׁשְׁבַּצַּר, sheshebbatstsar). First governor of Judaea appointed by Cyrus II. He returned the temple vessels and laid the temple foundations in 538 BC.
Biblical References
Sheshbazzar appears in the book of Ezra (Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16; also see 1 Esdras 2:12, 15; 6:18, 20). In Ezra 1:8, Sheshbazzar receives the temple vessels from Cyrus, which he then returns to Jerusalem with other exiles (Ezra 1:11). Williamson argues that the account of the temple vessels being returned reflects actual historical practices—evidence for this has been preserved at Persepolis (Studies in Persian Period, 225). The letter in Ezra 5 recounts that Cyrus appointed Sheshbazzar as governor and commanded him to return the temple vessels (Ezra 5:14). Ezra then reports that laid the foundations of the temple (Ezra 5:16).
Identity of Sheshbazzar
Haggai and Zechariah claim that Zerubbabel laid the foundations of the temple, not Sheshbazzar (Zech 4:9; 8:9; Hag 2:18). There are three possible solutions for the overlap between Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel:

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were actually the same person.
Andrew E. Steinmann suggests that Sheshbazzar was the Persian official commissioned for the project, but Zerubbabel was the actual project manager who did the work (“Chronological Note,” 520).
A. Gelston proposed that Sheshbazzar unsuccessfully attempted to rebuild the temple in 536 BC and Zerubbabel successfully restarted the rebuilding project in 520 BC (“Foundations of the Second Temple,” 234–35). This is the most widely accepted explanation.

Based on the spellings of Sheshbazzar in the Septuagint (Sasabasar) and 1 Esdras (Sanabassar), as well as the shared title “prince of Judah,” D. J. A. Clines identifies Sheshbazzar as Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 41). However, most modern commentators do not identify Sheshbazzar with any other biblical character (Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 46).
Bibliography

Clines, D.J.A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Ronald E. Clements. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Gelston, A. “The Foundations of the Second Temple.” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 232–235

Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Japhet, S. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra—Nehemiah.” Zietschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1982.

Klein, Ralph W. “Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 661–852 in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary 3. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–2).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2008.

Williamson, H.G. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

The entry on ZERUBBABEL, SON OF SHEALTIEL characterizes the past attempts to identify Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar with efforts to harmonize Ezra 3:8 and 5:16.  However, the entry (by David B. Schreiner) argues that the two people are also different:

In response to tensions between Ezra 3:8 and 5:16, Zerubbabel has often been equated with Sheshbazzar. Ezra 3:8 credits Zerubbabel with beginning reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Cyrus. However, Ezra 5:16 credits Sheshbazzar with initiating this effort. The identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar is thus a harmonization of these texts.
The effort to harmonize Ezra 3:8 and 5:16 by identifying Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar dates back to the rabbinic exegesis of the Middle Ages and has a small amount of support in certain manuscript traditions (compare discussion in Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 91). However, today, few scholars adhere to the position that Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the same person (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 120–21; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 9–12). For example, Albertz and Japhet argue that efforts to identify Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar are ineffective because both names are Babylonian in origin (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 120; Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 91). Japhet considers the various sources with their theological tendencies in relationship to one another and argues, “Sheshbazzar is the least of the people and the governor in the days of Cyrus, who lays the foundations of the Temple and brings the Temple vessels to Jerusalem; Zerubbabel is the leader and governor in the days of Darius, whose journey to Jerusalem brings in its wake waves of hope for redemption. Under his direction … the building is resumed and even completed” (Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 93).
Bibliography

Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century BC. Translated by David Green. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Japhet, Sara. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 66–98.


Papal blessings via alternate media? When I went to World Youth Day in 2005 (wow, long time ago now) my wife and I were sick of walking and wanted to enjoy our honeymoon for a bit so we watched the Pope come into Cologne on a boat.  We were with a big group of pilgrims and most of them went but one consoled us saying said something to the effect that, the Pope's blessing extends to those who watch him live on TV.

My question is, and I don't want to delve into scrupulosity here, but how out of sync can live TV be, does taped delay count?  How about watching taped benediction or Mass on EWTN?

And, yes, by count I do mean time off purgatory.  :)

I used to listen to the Vatican Radio podcast which included a recording of the Pope's Urbi et Orbi blessing and they would put a disclaimer in the recording that the blessing didn't apply to recordings, only to those present or watching/listening live.  The key distinction is live versus a recording; even if you're watching the EWTN web stream -- which might be broadcast delayed up to a minute or more due to the nature of "live web broadcasts" it still counts as live.

As for how much it counts toward time off of Purgatory, there is the rule in moral theology that you only receive the graces you're disposed to receive.


In LDS doctrine, what is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ? The Holy Ghost is usually described as the member of the Godhead that helps us know what is true, prompts us to do good, and generally helps us feel God's influence. I've often heard it described as something similar to a "conscience" that helps us know what is right and what is wrong. I've heard very similar descriptions for the Light of Christ. Both are available in some degree to everyone, and both are experienced less when we go against God's will. So what's the difference between the two, or are they the same thing?

Short Answer
The Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ are closely related and are often used interchangeably, even in scripture. But there are a few important differences.
The Holy Ghost, in contrast with the Light of Christ:

Is a personage.
Directs and prompts us in specific ways according to God's will.
Can work through the Light of Christ.
Is available to everyone, but is not always present to everyone. His influence is only felt when certain conditions are met.

The Light of Christ, on the other hand:

Is an influence, an essence, or a substance that infuses the universe and emanates from the goodness of Christ.
Gives us a sense of what is right and what is wrong, and influences us to do right and avoid wrong.
Can be ignited in us by the Holy Ghost.
Is always present in all of us, but becomes more difficult to perceive as we act against its influence.

Long Answer
President Boyd K Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the LDS Church gave a discourse that explores the light of Christ and contrasts it with the Holy Ghost. He gives a better and more authoritative explanation than I can. Here are some especially relevant excerpts:

Most members of the Church have a basic understanding of the Holy Ghost. Most have experienced its promptings and understand why the Holy Ghost is called the Comforter.
They know “the Holy Ghost … is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22) and a member of the Godhead (see A of F 1:1).
But many do not know that there is another Spirit—“the light of Christ” (D&C 88:7)—another source of inspiration, which each of us possesses in common with all other members of the human family....
The Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ are different from each other. While they are sometimes described in the scriptures with the same words, they are two different and distinct entities. It is important for you to know about both of them....
The Light of Christ is defined in the scriptures as “the Spirit [which] giveth light to every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 84:46); “the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed” (D&C 88:13; see also John 1:4–9; D&C 84:45–47; D&C 88:6; D&C 93:9).
And the Light of Christ is also described in the scriptures as “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (D&C 84:45), “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18; see also Mosiah 25:24), “the Spirit of truth” (D&C 93:26), “the light of truth” (D&C 88:6), “the Spirit of God” (D&C 46:17), and “the Holy Spirit” (D&C 45:57). Some of these terms are also used to refer to the Holy Ghost....
Regardless of whether this inner light, this knowledge of right and wrong, is called the Light of Christ, moral sense, or conscience, it can direct us to moderate our actions—unless, that is, we subdue it or silence it....
The Light of Christ existed in you before you were born (see D&C 93:23, 29–30), and it will be with you every moment that you live and will not perish when the mortal part of you has turned to dust. It is ever there....
It is important...to know that the Holy Ghost can work through the Light of Christ. A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into [the learner]. Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar “ring” to them. Then the teaching will come “to the convincing of [those who will listen] that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon title page)....
President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke of the teachings of the Holy Ghost and of the Spirit of Christ: “Every man can receive a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, even when he is out of the Church, if he is earnestly seeking for the light and for the truth. The Holy Ghost will come and give the man the testimony he is seeking, and then withdraw; and the man does not have a claim upon another visit or constant visits and manifestations from him. He may have the constant guidance of that other Spirit, the Spirit of Christ.”
The Spirit of Christ is always there. It never leaves. It cannot leave.
Everyone everywhere already has the Spirit of Christ, and while the Spirit of the Holy Ghost can visit anyone, the gift of the Holy Ghost is obtained “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (A of F 1:3), by submitting to “baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; [and the] laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:4). It is not automatically present like the Spirit of Christ is present. This gift must be conferred by one holding authority (see A of F 1:5)....
Once a person has received that gift of the Holy Ghost and can cultivate it together with the Light of Christ, which they already have, then the fulness of the gospel is open to their understanding. The Holy Ghost can even work through the Light of Christ....
[W]hy should we marvel at the promise that the Light of Christ is in all of us and that the Holy Ghost can visit any of us?
It should not be difficult, therefore, to understand how revelation from God to His children on earth can come to all mankind through both the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost....
[T]he Light of Christ can be ignited by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. We are told that then “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).


What's the context in the "Hail" part of Hail Mary? I was just thinking, that's a strange greeting. Didn't people back then usually say "hail" in the context of "Hail Caesar"?  And apparently Mary thought that was a strange greeting too, even stranger than the fact that it was an Angel who greeted her thus.

So, according to the Catholic Church, does Hail (or Ave) in the sense that Gabriel uses it in Luke, actually have anything to do with addressing royalty?   Has it ever been posited that the Archangel Gabriel would use that terminology only in reference to the Holy Mother of God?

The "Hail" would be a normal greeting. I've encountered some people who believe that when Catholics say "Hail Mary.." they're worshiping her. To my understanding the original meaning doesn't necessarily connote addressing royalty, and especially not worship. Those contexts to the word might be a much more modern development.

Even in today's English we see Hail used with regular contexts instance; if someone "Hails a cab", are they worshipping the car or the driver? No; they're flagging it down.

In movies, especially in naval ( or space sci-fi contexts), characters sometimes say "We're being hailed by the USS Magellan" or some such. Again, obviously nobody is honoring or worhsipping the crew or the ship- they're greeting it.


Did the 12 disciples represent all 12 tribes? I know that Jesus chose 12 disciples (apostles) to represent the 12 tribes. My question do we know if each of the 12 were from a different tribe of Israel?  In other words are all of the tribes represented in the 12 apostles?

From the simple fact that there were at least two sets of brothers, we can say for sure that their primary tribal identities were not from all 12 tribes.

If you included all their tribal ancestors from their mothers' sides as well, then we'd expect that all the tribes were represented just from the fact that people moved and married around a lot, but there's no actual evidence for it either way.


Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual? There are a lot of claims that famous figures in history were gay. Peter Tatchell speculates that Jesus could have been. His claim, however, is based on a dubious manuscript.

Have any well-established, credible scholars (historians, psychologists, etc.) claimed in a scholarly setting that, based on the contents of widely accepted historical documents, there is some indication, beyond that of mere speculation, that Jesus engaged in homosexual behavior?

If not, please explain why similar claims are not generally accepted in scholarly settings.

From canonical Scripture alone, I don't think that argument could be made.

The mosaic law clearly forbids homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, making it a sin in God's eyes.  If Jeus came, and fulfilled the law, which he said he did, in Matthew 5:17-18, then that would have to mean that he followed the entirety of the law to the letter, including the commandments forbidding homosexuality.

If New Testament writings are to be taken as truth then, for Jesus to have been perfect (Hebrews 4:15) and thus the only acceptable sacrifice for sin (1 Peter 1:19), he could not have been gay.

If Jesus was gay, then according to Scripture, the entirety of the Gospel would cave in on itself.  Jesus would have been guilty of transgressing the mosaic law, and therefore, owing death as the penalty for his own sin. (Romans 6:23). If he was gay, then, the death he died would have been bearing the weight of his own sin, and the entirety of the Christian worldview would come crashing to the ground.

In short, Christianity depends on Jesus not being gay.

That said, there's nothing that would have prevented the temptation to sin, indeed, Scripture says he was tempted, but he could not have followed through with it and simultaneously maintain the innocence he would have needed to endure the cross, carrying the sins of the world on his back.

Gay Jesus, then, by definition, cannot coexist with Christianity.


What scholarship exists behind the WikiSource translation of the Bible? In response to a question about Onan, @RonMaimon chose the WikiSource translation. Not being familiar with it, I tried to examine it's pedigree, but could not find one. I'd like to know a little about the scholarship of this translation.

I see that it has been in progress since 2006, but can't seem to locate much more than that.

Additionally, Bible Gateway, which has a lot of translations, does not source this one.

I like the idea behind an open source translation, but can't decide if this one is quality or not.

From what base manuscripts is the text drawn? What key manuscripts are referenced (Are we talking Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, papyri, etc.. Or is this based on later translations such as the LXX or even English translations. ) Is Nestle-Aland 27 considered, etc...
What are the credentials of the translators? Put another way, how do I even know if they can read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Unfortunately, I couldn't locate the base manuscripts to do any investigation.
What is the translation philosophy of WikiSource? Is it dynamic or formal equivalence?

For Kjv, hcsb, esv, nrsv, and lots of others, you can easily find the answers, but i had no luck on Wikisource. Even for the NET bible - a public domain bible, I can answer these questions and still retain full insight into the translation choices, but i couldn't locate such a statement for this one.

The Wiki page for the Bible translation project is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:WPWB

I wouldn't really trust it so much because it says stuff like this:

  If you know Greek or Hebrew, add your name to the list of participants
  and claim a chapter! Or if you don't want to make that commitment yet,
  check somebody else's work. If you don't know Greek or Hebrew, we can
  still very much use your English skills in proof-reading and tweaking
  the text.

And when it lists out the participants in the project, it says:

  Type #~~~ at the end of the list to add you name. If you want the
  current date and time after your name add one more "~". If you
  understand Greek or Hebrew very well please add " - Translator" after
  the #~~~. If you don't understand Greek and Hebrew very well then you
  can add " - editor" after you name.

They don't seem to understand that it takes a lot more than "knowing Greek and Hebrew" to be able to translate the Bible or any ancient text for that matter. You not only need to be a master of these languages AS THEY WERE SPOKEN back then but also need to know the culture of the time like the back of your hand.

My advice, don't take WIKI anything without a grain of salt. It should raise a lot of alarms in the case of the Bible, especially because anyone thinking they can do it, will try to do it. They are probably trying to stay true to the translation (I don't know what their intentions are), but I just wouldn't trust them. I have a hard time trusting some of the translations out there already, I would steer clear of Wiki stuff.

I should make it clear though, I like open source stuff, but this stuff is something I would probably not want to take any chances with.


Is cross dressing immoral or forbidden by the bible I am a catholic young man. I’m straight but I recently started and am enjoying cross dressing.I have been enjoying the look of female fashion quite a bit more then male fashion for about 7 years now.

I’m kind of a bible/theology noob so I am wondering if enjoying certain things, like paintings my nails or wearing leggings is immoral. I can’t see anything wrong with it, but I don’t actually know enough.

Thanks

The only Bible passage that comes to mind is this quote from Deuteronomy:

  A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing,
  for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (Deuteronomy 22:5,
  NIV)

Feel free to ask God if He has changed his mind on this issue.


How did all the animals fit into Noah's ark? During the great flood Noah was ordered by God to fetch two animals of each species and put them into his ark.

  19    And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of
  every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be
  male and female.

  20    Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals
  after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its
  kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

  21    As
  for you, take for yourself some of all afood which is edible, and
  gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.

Genesis 6:19-21

There are more than 1 million different species of animals in existence (that we know of), many of them are quite large or dangerous. How can all of those animals even fit into the ark, together with the vast amounts of food that would be needed?

I suppose there is one other possible answer:

  It was a miracle.

That would put it in the "how did Jesus walk on water?" and "how did Jesus feed thousands of people with a few fish sandwiches?" category.


Why sleep next to an open Bible? Numerous times in my life I have heard vague references to leaving a Bible open, usually on a table near you, as you sleep.

Is this is a real practice? If so what is the purpose? Is it thought to offer some protection? Is it thought to revitalize the soul?

While doubtless some do actually sleep with the Good Book physically open by their bedsides, the bulk of the usage of this phrasing is idiomatic. At least in every context I've ever heard it, whether a Bible was physically open or not was not the point so much as that it was easily accessible and actively used: the last thing you were looking at each night and the first thing you would reach for in the morning.

Given that you say when you've heard it the references have been vague, I suspect what you've been hearing is also this idiomatic usage. To my knowledge none of the major branches of Christianity teach that this should literally happen. Again it's possible that some small groups here and there hold some eccentric view, but most English speaking Christians are less likely to mean this literally than idiomatically.