Did Jesus and his disciples have an occasional “hiding place”? We see at Jn 11:6, the immediate response of Jesus to the news that Lazarus was seriously ill:

... after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days
longer in the place where he was.

Going back to Jn 10:39-40,  we see where Jesus was at that time:

Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been
baptizing earlier, and he remained there.

It is traditionally believed that the location of the Al-Maghtas ruins on the eastern side of the Jordan River was where Jesus was baptized and where John the Baptist ministered.
Jesus says elsewhere:

Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place
to lay his head.” (Lk 9:58).

That remark perhaps alludes to the itinerant nature of his public life, though he had his mother and a house in which she lived.
Now, Jesus was widely believed to be preparing for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. Naturally, he and his disciples were in the watch-list of the Roman authorities, with some Jews more than eager to betray the group. It was therefore only natural for Jesus and his disciples to stay out of public gaze, at least on certain occasions, such as the time of Lazarus's illness.
The Ruins across Jordan appear to be qualifying for such a hiding place. Of course, the Gospels do not explicitly name any place where Jesus and his disciples spent time away from public view.
My question therefore is: Did Jesus and his disciples have an occasional 'hiding place'? Views of any denomination are welcome.

You may have answered your question with your own statement:

Of course, the Gospels do not explicitly name any place where Jesus and his disciples spent time away from public view.

Had the Holy Spirit wanted the gospel writers to include the name of such a hiding place, he would have inspired them to name it. Since the Spirit did not, however, no such place is mentioned, at least explicitly.
What the Gospels do mention explicitly is that--as you have pointed out--Jesus frequently needed to escape public notice by making himself scarce! His reason for doing this is linked intimately to his life's timetable.
At Cana in Galilee, the place of Jesus's first public miracle, Jesus said to his mother,

"Woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4 NIV).

The phrase "my hour has not yet come" is significant. Commentator Constable has this to say regarding Jesus's words "my hour":

The Greek word translated time (ὥρα, hōra) occurs in John 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28, 29; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:25; and 17:1. It is a reference to the special period in Jesus’ life when he was to leave this world and return to the Father (13:1); the hour when the Son of man is glorified (17:1). This is accomplished through his suffering, death, resurrection (and ascension—though this last is not emphasized by John). John 7:30 and 8:20 imply that Jesus’ arrest and death are included. John 12:23 and 17:1, referring to the glorification of the Son, imply that the resurrection and ascension are included as part of the “hour.” In John 2:4 Jesus’ remark to his mother indicates that the time for this self-manifestation has not yet arrived; his identity as Messiah is not yet to be publicly revealed.

In saying "my hour has not yet come," Jesus was indicating the importance he placed on doing his Father's will, and that included the when, the where, the how, and the why. Jesus said,

. . . I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him” (John 8:28b-29 NIV).

Saying and doing what pleased the Father was Jesus's priority. Equally important to Jesus was being sensitive to when and what the Father wanted him to do and say. Again, the Father's timetable was Jesus's timetable. If saying or doing something would in any way jeopardize its timely fulfillment, Jesus would immediately adjust his course accordingly. Sometimes that adjustment involved making himself (and his disciples) hard to find.
In short, Jesus may have had numerous hiding places during his public ministry. Since the Gospels do not mention explicitly where those places were, save in general terms such as "across the Jordan," we must assume the Spirit who inspired the Gospel writers chose not to bring those locations to their minds as they wrote.
By the way, the disciples had a hiding place where they could lay low after Jesus's crucifixion. "For fear of the Jews" they were behind locked doors. Perhaps this location was where Jesus and his disciples celebrated the Last Supper together. Just a thought!


Why did Jesus submit to the authority of God while Jesus was a man? The Bible tells us that Jesus emptied himself and set aside his heavenly glory and submitted himself to the will of his Father (God).
In order to do the will of his Father (God) who sent him, and to obey Him, Jesus was in a lower position to that of God the Father.
What are the theological implications of this change in position, and was it permanent?
I am looking for a biblical explanation from a Reformed Protestant position.

Whenever the word ‘position’ is used with regard to how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to each other, people are inclined to think of “High, higher, highest”. This can be misleading for all three equally have the one nature of Deity. But the three relate to each other in particular ways, as they have functions and roles within the one Being of God. They are utterly united and as one in working out the perfect will of Deity. There can never be three divine wills. There can only be one divine will.
The Reformed Protestant view is that they are co-equal in triunity. However,

Arianism (also, Subordinationism) holds that only the Father is God in
the fullest sense; the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior.
According to Arianism, the Son is the first created being.  Ontology
is a branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions dealing with
reality and existence. (Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton pp463 & 469
– Zondervan 2011)

The Reformed Protestant view is that the Son is eternal so that there never was a time when he was not; then came a time when he incarnated as the man, Jesus, which did not alter his position as the second Person of the Trinity, nor did it change how he related on earth to the Father in heaven. For example, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). Living a human life on a material planet, he could experience first-hand things not experienced in the spirit realm (heaven). His purpose in leaving heaven to be confined for a season to a physical existence was to carry out the Father’s will – a pre-determined will formed in the councils of God before any material creation started – a will that the uncreated Word of God had agreed to before the Word “made everything that was made” prior to becoming flesh (John 1:1-14).
That is why 1 Peter 1:13-20 tells Christians they were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the pure, sacrificial blood of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” That is why Christ is spoken of in Revelation 13:8 as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Once this was determined in the Godhead, it was as good as done. When the time came to enact the obedience, the suffering, and the sacrifice of this spotless Lamb, Jesus, his obedience to God the Father in all of this was clearly seen – of necessity. It was unthinkable that Jesus, the Son, would diverge from what had been planned prior to creation, yet it remained necessary that the Word made flesh show total submission to the Father. Only a disobedient Son would not submit to his Father. But having been co-equal with the Father prior to his incarnation, he could not be contrary to Deity as God manifest in the flesh, for his nature remained the same, now with human nature added to it.
Yes, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  (1 Timothy 3:16) This is said of Jesus, the eternal Son of God, and it is beyond us. These awesome words of scripture tell us what we need to know and to believe, but we cannot grasp it this side of glory. We can only wonder in awe at the willing submission of the Son to the Father, continuing while he walked down here below though then with massively great pressures brought to bear on him by the evil one. What we do know is that had Jesus not submitted to the authority of the Father then, Satan would have triumphed and Jesus would never have defeated him either in the wilderness or at the cross, which would have meant that Jesus could not have been the Son of God. But because he is the eternal Son of God, he perfectly carried out the will of God.


What is a mystical experience according to Catholicism? After reading this about Benedict's resignation.

Benedict denied he had been visited by an apparition or had heard
God's voice, but said he had undergone a "mystical experience" during
which God had inspired in him an "absolute desire" to dedicate his
life to prayer rather than push on as pope.

I always thought that a mystical experience involves an apparition or some kind of higher state of our mind (ecstasy). I didn't think that a mystical experience can simply be some simple brain processes where we make a religious decision based on our own or circunstancial reasoning.
What is the definition of a mystical experience according to the Catholic theology? I was told that everyone is called to be a mystic. So expecting supernatural events in life should be part of our life but is that really always required?

What is a mystical experience according to Catholicism?
Sounds like the million dollar question that everyone wants to know, but is extremely hard to actually narrow down and answer.

Mystical theology is the science which treats of acts and experiences or states of the soul which cannot be produced by human effort or industry even with the ordinary aid of Divine grace. It comprises among its subjects all extraordinary forms of prayer, the higher forms of contemplation in all their varieties or gradations, private revelations, visions, and the union growing out of these between God and the soul, known as the mystical union. As the science of all that is extraordinary in the relations between the Divinity and the human spirit, mystical theology is the complement of ascetical, which treats of Christian perfection and of its acquisition by the practice of virtue, particularly by the observance of the counsels. The contents of mystical theology are doctrinal as well as experimental, as it not only records the experiences of souls mystically favoured, but also lays down rules for their guidance, which are based on the authority of the Scriptures, on the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, and on the explanations of theologians, many of them eminent as mystics. - Mystical Theology

Many Catholics consider mystical experiences uniquely a being something involving ecstasies, visions, etc. only. But in reality, it is far more complicated than that. In essence, in all revolves an individual’s level of union with God through contemplation!

In many spiritual traditions there is talk about “mystics” or “mysticism.” In the Catholic Church, this has a particular definition and describes a number of saints who are known as mystics.
The word mysticism is not surprisingly related to the word “mystery.” In this context being a mystic is automatically shrouded in mystery and is difficult to describe to someone on the outside.
On the other hand, mysticism in the Christian tradition is quite simple and in a certain sense is the goal of every Christian.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, “Mysticism considers as the end … the direct union of the human soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this end. This contemplation, according to Mysticism, is not based on a merely analogical knowledge of the Infinite, but as a direct and immediate intuition of the Infinite.”
A mystic is someone who desires union with God and actively tries to foster that union. At times this union is miraculously expressed through spiritual ecstasies or visions, but it is not always the case. A true mystic does not seek out these extraordinary experiences, but they often occur because their heart is in such a profound union with God.
Mystics are often mysterious people as they live partly in this world, and partly in the next. Their union with God is so close that they have a difficult time remaining on earth as they desire more and more to be fully united with their ultimate love.
The Church is full of mystics and in a certain sense, all saints could be considered “mystics” in their own way. Each desired to be fully united with God and followed his will to achieve that end. Some of the more famous mystics are St. Padre Pio, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.
In a certain sense, the goal is not to become a mystic, as if it were a title to be gained, but to achieve a profound and loving union with God. This is why we should all be “mystics” in our own way, aiming our lives to that ultimate goal that would be fully realized until the end of our life. -What is a Christian mystic?

In the end, any mystical experience is simply an experience due to a higher degree of union with God. In most cases this is simply an interior infusion of graces into the soul, accorded to certain souls closely united to the Divine Trinity through prayer, contemplation and penance.
This can be easily confirmed in the French literary works of La vie spirituelle et l'oraison, d'après la Sainte Ecriture et la tradition monastique by Mother Cécile Bruyère (12 October 1845 – 18 March 1909) which I have had the pleasure of reading several times.


Something produced by Jehovah's Witnesses that explains their basic beliefs? I'm interested in understanding what the core/basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are, but I'm struggling to figure out how to get a basic overview of their core beliefs without starting a continuous Bible Study with them (would be interested, just don't have time at this point in my life)

I've received a copy of "What Can The Bible Teach Us?" from a Witness I'm in regular contact with. In taking a tour from him of the local Kingdom Hall, I've learned that this is one of two books typically shared with people interested in learning more about Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm struggling with the "Teach" book. I've found that the writing style of the book is aimed more at an audience of people who are possibly interested in becoming Witnesses. I find that the writing often seeks an emotional connection or response, rather than offering information in a simple way. I also find that some of the logic makes leaps that I struggle to follow, and which are often irrelevant to explaining the belief.

I have no problem with the non-informational writing style - it seems that it would work well in a Bible Study setting. But as a person who is simply trying to understand what the basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are, from a source produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, without starting a Bible Study, this book is really hard to get clear information out of.

So, is there a piece of literature produced by the Witnesses that is written to be purely informational in explaining what their most important basic beliefs are? Or is all literature aimed at an audience of those who are investigating, or already joined with, the religion?

I know that a person could go to JW.org and find the basic beliefs scattered throughout articles. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for one pamphlet, one book, or one intentional series of small booklets. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produces 3 small pamphlets covering core, basic beliefs plus 5 small pamphlets covering some big lifestyle-affecting beliefs (ex. Tithing or the word of wisdom). The missionaries pass out these pamphlets like crazy where I live. The answer doesn't need to be a series of pamphlets in that exact format, but those simple pamphlets are:
1. Short
2. Easy to read
3. Communicate the basics without me needing to invite LDS missionaries into my home

Every time I ask a Witness for literature that explains their beliefs, I get asked to start a Bible Study with them. I've been told multiple times that their beliefs can't be shared by printed literature. I guess I just want to find out if that's true or if I just happen to have stumbled across a few Witnesses who really, really want more Bible Studies.

I don’t know how I missed that link provided by Kris either!  I searched online for two hours but got drawn into a bewildering array of articles, none of which specifically answered that question.  Even when I keyed in “jehovah witness beliefs” I did not find that link.  I had to go to their Bible Based Books web site to find it.  Clearly, their web site could do with simplification – either that or I’m really stupid!
The official link given by Kris provides a brief overview of their basic beliefs from which you can look at more detailed information on a variety of topics (such as why they don’t believe the Trinity or why only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can ever go to heaven: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/
However, it is not a comprehensive publication. The only book that is referred to as appropriate for people to learn about their beliefs is the ‘Bible Teach’ book.  It is specifically designed to be used as a study book and the objective is to get interested people to agree to a regular home study session.  The idea is to carefully guide people along a path that will gently encourage them to come along to the weekly meetings to further increase their appreciation and understanding of “the truth”.  A 2015 article said this:

The length of the study course depends on you. The book What Does the Bible Really Teach? contains 19 lessons. You can cover any or all of the lessons at a pace that suits you.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015243?q=frequently+asked+questions&p=par

The 2005 ‘Bible Teach’ book is the latest in a long line of similar publications that are used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to teach interested persons in their beliefs.  They all use the question and answer teaching method.  The answers to the questions are to be found in the relevant paragraph.  The subject matter and chapter headings follow a similar pattern covering identical topics:

1968 The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life
1969 Is the Bible Really the Word of God?

A 1995 Watchtower mentioned the Public Meetings as an appropriate place for people to learn about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are held in local Kingdom Halls:

17 Another long-time feature of the teaching program is the Public Meeting. As its name indicates, this meeting was established particularly to acquaint non-Witnesses with basic Bible teachings. Thus, the one giving the talk needs to present the information so that it is understandable to those hearing the message for the first time. This means explaining terms such as “other sheep,” “brothers,” and “remnant,” terms that non-Witnesses may not understand. Since people who attend the Public Meeting may have beliefs or life-styles that are quite contrary to the Scriptures—though acceptable in today’s society—the speaker should always be tactful and never make fun of such beliefs or life-styles.  Source:  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995564?q=basic+beliefs&p=par

Whatever you do, make sure you compare their New World Translation with other Bibles, preferably accredited Study Bibles that provide extensive commentaries in order to better understand the differences between some of the key doctrinal issues that distinguish Jehovah’s Witnesses from Trinitarian Christians.
P.S. Try this official web site link: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=faq


Are sins sinful because they are inherently acts of badness or because they are acts of disobedience against god? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the essence of sin?

Reading the question about why eating an apple is a sin and some of its answers and comments made me think.

If eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden was a sin just because Adam and Eve were told not to do it, that becoming the prototypical and defining act of sin, then how are we to resolve this with the general perception that certain things are sins because they are bad or evil or immoral acts.

Do all sins come down to disobedience? Are there two types of sins? Why make the original sin based on seemingly arbitrary test of obedience rather than an act of "doing something bad"? Are sins of disobeying god worse, equal, or not as bad as sins of the bad/evil/immoral type?

All sin is such not because the act it's self is inherently evil (although it could be) but because it is something other than what is perfect. The definition of the word sin is missing the mark. meaning the goal is perfection and you didn't achieve this. We see this in Romans 3:23

  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We also see in James 4:17 if anyone knows to do good, and does not do it, it is sin. We also see in Isaiah 64:4-9  the righteousness of man is like filthy rags (or more graphically, used tolite paper). Meaning  the very best man can achieve without God, is still grotesque  in comparison with God's standard of perfection. So in that since all sin is equal.

But it stands to reason that disobedience is really the archetype for destructive sin, since it moves sin away from falling short of good to willingly doing the oposite, Since God is telling us that something is not perfect and we decide to do it anyway. I would say that yes that sin is worse because it is the embodiment of sin. But all sin is still falling short of the glory of God, so in that since all sin is equal.


Why does an omnipotent God allow evil to flourish on his earth? The most common answer here will be: evil must be allowed to have free will. This is simply not true. If we are speaking of an omnipotent God that created the entire universe and any extra dimensional space we can't observe, then couldn't he have come up with something better? If not and this was the only way free will could exist, then why have it when having it means horrible things will happen to your people? Babies being raped to death, mass genocide, beheadings, starvation etc. Wouldn't a God that cared about his people realize that free will is not worth the mass destruction caused by the human race? Not to mention such atrocities as disease, which is not a necessary component for free will's existence, that also flourishes in this environment here on earth. What is its purpose? The questions asked here are rhetorical, the main question stands.

Free Will is a Necessity for Love. Evil is a Necessity for Nothing.

God’s original creation was perfect. It included free will and did not include evil1.  Why would God create free will?  Because true love is impossible without it.  God could be said to have created the capacity for evil, but that is not the same as creating evil.  What the omnipotent God has always sought from us is love.  That is the only goal.  That evil could exist for a time is a byproduct of God’s created order, but it was never inherent in creation. Evil exists because we rebelled against God.

Could an Omnipotent God have a Purpose for Evil?

The crux of your complaint has to do with the consequences of someone else’s (evil) choices. Why does the all-powerful God allow innocent people to suffer the consequences of someone else’s choices?

In general, the unpleasant consequences for our rebellious choices is meant to help us by steering us away from those choices. How could the suffering of innocent people be justified? Perhaps we would not understand the very destructive, permeating nature of our sin if we did not observe the tragedy it foists upon others. We like to pretend that our sins only hurt us, but that is lie we tell ourselves in an attempt to make our sin seem less bad. Our sin affects people around us: people who depend on us, people who love us, people who expect us not to crash into them when they’re driving on the same road as us, etc.

The pain caused by the consequences of sin has the potential to teach us something important. Rather than imagining God to be vindictive in his punishment, it makes more sense to consider that if he loves us, he will want us to turn from our sin, and will use pain to get our attention. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a girl who was born without the ability to feel pain. Her life is in constant jeopardy because pain is the means by which a normal human body tells you something is wrong. She feels none, and so she has no way of sensing the peril she is in and reacting to it. Our pain is unpleasant, but it is vitally important to our own well-being—even if the pain is because of someone else’s choices.

Could an Omnipotent God Use Suffering, Too?

This is not explicitly in the question, but it is in your remarks.

The corruption that our sin brought into the world means that pain and suffering are simple realities that will never go away in this life. What purpose could an omnipotent god have for allowing undeserved suffering?

Ever since the fall, the world has been corrupted. God’s perfect creation has been defaced and spoiled, and only in death/destruction will that ever change. The pain that we must endure in this life is certainly meant to produce in us a longing for that perfect world that we willingly abandoned.2

Jesus distilled the meaning of eternal life as “knowing God.” (Jn 17:3) This is the entire purpose of our existence. It was in the beginning, and still is, though now we have made it more difficult. The injustice we feel when witnessing or experiencing suffering should lead us to want something better, and the only satisfying object of that desire is God himself. Suffering has this purpose, at least. The death of a loved one should make us long for a companion who will not die. Loneliness and rejection should make us yearn for a friend who loves us and will not leave or reject us. The very things that we need are those things that mortal, fallible human beings cannot guarantee us, but God can provide those things.

The Omnipotent God did not design us for any greater purpose than loving him. While he has the power to prevent pain and suffering, he chooses not do so at least some of the time. Rather, he uses pain and suffering to help us understand the truth, because he loves us and wants us to love him.

1 What about Satan? Was he created evil? The fact that God condemns Satan for his choices at least suggests that he was not. We are not plainly told much of Satan’s origins, but the simplest explanation that makes sense of the facts we have is that he chose to rebel against God. The original assertion stands: God’s original creation did not include evil.

2 What about innocent children? Why do they suffer never having had a chance to make such choices? Some might argue that children are never wholly innocent, only ignorant, of their sin. The weight behind the question is about having to live with this pain, and being alive means having an opportunity to grow. The death of children is devastatingly sad, but it is not the topic of this question.


Does 1 Corinthians 8:6 prove Unitarianism? yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all  , things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV

To me it looks like Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father.

The fact that Jesus is called the one Lord can be hard to reconcile with the rest of the Scripture if Unitarianism is true. Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father) how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

Does the context and origianl language allow for the translation "one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ? (Without the commas)

I looked to many commentaries and no one gave me a satisfying answer, please help!

P.S. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity

You ask how is 1 Corinthians 8:6

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

to be understood with Trinitarian theology? In particular, you state "Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father." Trinitarians have never seen 1 Corinthians 8:6 that way. They have focused on the unity of the Father and the Son, the Logos, in their action in creation. What was shocking to both the Jewish and pagan converts was not that Paul placed the Father and the Son/Logos on equal level but that he identified the Logos with the man Jesus Christ.  Trinitarians do not understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 as separating the Father from the Son, but rather believe that Paul is placing the Lord Jesus Christ on equal footing with the one God, the Father by identifying Him with the Logos.

The Nicene Creed

You asked

  how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity

There is no need to reconcile it with Trinitarian theology since it is the correct expression of Trinitarian theology. In particular the Church Fathers gathered at Nicaea for the First Ecumenical Council felt this was the most appropriate way to refer to the Father and the Son. Notice the how the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed lines up with 1 Corinthians 8:6:

    1 Corinthians 8:6               Nicene Creed (325)
There is one God, the Father    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty
of whom are all things          Maker of all things visible and invisible.
and we for Him
and one Lord Jesus Christ       And in one Lord Jesus Christ
                                the Son of God,
                                begotten of the Father
                                the only-begotten
                                that is, of the essence of the Father,
                                God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
                                begotten, not made,
                                being of one substance with the Father
through whom are all things,    By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth
and through whom we live.
                                Who for us men, and for our salvation,
                                came down and was incarnate and was made man.
                                He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven
                                From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
                                And in the Holy Ghost.

While the Nicene Fathers apparently felt that words of 1 Corinthians 8:6 accurately stated their position, they did find in necessary to clarify the relationship between the Father and the Son. Why? Because the Arians presented this same verse as a proof text. They asserted, somewhat like your question implies, that only the Father is God and that Christ something else, something lesser, a Lord. But this in no way implies that they held a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Arius and his followers believed that Christ was God as well. Arius himself wrote in a letter to his fellow Arian Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia:

  But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. [Emphasis mine]

Both the Arian and the Nicene Christians believed that 1 Corinthians 8:6 taught that Christ is God -- certainly not a Unitarian interpretation. The Nicene Trinitarians made many arguments as to why the Son is of the essence of the Father, of one substance with the Father, but we will focus on the ones that address 1 Corinthians 8:6. The positions of the Trinitarians as they address Arianism will illustrate that they did not even consider a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6 to be possible.

Countering Arianism

John Chrysostrom

John Chrysostrom lived shortly after the Council of Nicaea. In his 20th Homily on Corinthians (I recommend you read the entire homily) he writes about 1 Corinthians 8:6

  "yet to us there is One God, the Father." In the first instance [1 Corinthians 8:4] having expressed it without the word "Father," and said, "there is no God but one," he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others. Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; "of Whom are all things." For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said, "Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish. [Jeremiah 10:11]"

So Chrysostrom has established that creatio ex nihilo is the 'is the greatest token of divinity', and he goes on to apply that to the Son:

  And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase "of Whom" it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

Chrysostrom understands this verse to mean that Father's action in creation (of Whom) 'is the greatest token of divinity' and can not be separated from Christ's participation (through whom) in the act of creation. This unequivocally places Christ at the same level as the Father and rules out either a Unitarian or Arian interpretation.

You state

  Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father)

There is no basis for this in the text and is not consistent with Trinitarian tradition. As if anticipating your question by some 1600 years Chrysostrom points out that if you say that 1 Corinthians 8:6 applies the word God to the Father only and exclude the Son, then you must exclude the one God, the Father from being Lord. Chrysostrom dismisses such an idea out of hand as it is obvious to him that the One God is Lord:

  And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, "Because it is said 'One God,' therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son" observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called "One Lord," yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression "One" has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa also lived shortly after Nicea. In the treatise Against Eunomius Gregory argued against an the Anomoeanism/Eunomians lead by Eunomius. They professed an extreme version of Arianism (beyond what Arius taugh) that taught that Christ was neither of the same substance (homoousia) as the Father (the Nicene position) nor a similar substance (homoiousia) as the Father (the neo/semi-Arian position) Like Chrysostrom, Gregory argues that the Son is fully separate from the creation in the same way that Father is and cites 1 Corinthians 8:6 as proof:

  And let no one think it unreasonable that the creature should be set in opposition to God, but have regard to the prophets and to the Apostles. For the prophet says in the person of the Father, "My Hand made all these things" [Isaiah 66:2]  meaning by "Hand," in his dark saying, the power of the Only-begotten. Now the Apostle says that all things are of the Father, and that all things are by the Son,[1 Corinthians 8:6] and the prophetic spirit in a way agrees with the Apostolic teaching, which itself also is given through the Spirit. For in the one passage, the prophet, when he says that all things are the work of the Hand of Him Who is over all, sets forth the nature of those things which have come into being in its relation to Him Who made them, while He Who made them is God over all, Who has the Hand, and by It makes all things. And again, in the other passage, the Apostle makes the same division of entities, making all things depend upon their productive cause, yet not reckoning in the number of "all things" that which produces them: so that we are hereby taught the difference of nature between the created and the uncreated, and it is shown that, in its own nature, that which makes is one thing and that which is produced is another.

Thus the Trinitarians saw 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaching that the one God, the Father, and the One Lord Jesus Christ to be united in substance because their action in creation. Though they made these arguments against the Arians, they apply equally as well, if not more so, to Unitarians. And this was not unique to the Christians of the Nicene era. The line of thought goes back well before them.

Ante-Nicene Examples.

Athenagoras of Athens

Athenagoras was born around AD 133 He wrote A Plea for the Christians to the Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus to explain and defend Christianity. In trying to prove the reasonableness of Christianity, Athenagoras [argues that the Father and the Son are one] in a manner similar to Chrysostrom and Gregory. He does not directly cite 1 Corinthians 8:6 as there would be no reason to expect the emperors to be familiar with it, but he may be alluding to it.

  That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently demonstrated. I say "His Logos", for we acknowledge also a Son of God... But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.

Athenagoras argues that Son is the Logos of the Father and one with the Father because of their action in creation. This foreshadows the later arguments of the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers.

Justin Martyr

Justin was born around AD 100. He wrote Dialogue with Trypho a long treatise (but worth reading in full) dedicated to showing the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. It is presented as a discussion between Justin and and a Jew named Trypho. Trypho is said to have studied under Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, but now mainly lives in Corinth. In the 61st chapter, Justin writes

  "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Now, the Trinitarian might object to the Son being called the Holy Spirit, but that is not relevant to why Justin's comments are important. Justin asserts the unity of the Logos/Son with the Father. Further, he expects a Jew educated in Greek philosophy (and living in Corinth) to be familiar with and even accept this idea. That is, both Hellenized Jews and educated Greeks of the time would be familiar with the concept of the Logos being from God, but also God, and God/Father's partner in creation. And this idea was not foreign to Hellenized Jews.

Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who was roughly a contemporary of Christ, wrote of the Logos, identifying it with the image of God (Compare with Colossians 1:15 and John 1:3),

  Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made

I should like to have more time to expand on this, but what should be apparent by now is that not just Trinitarians but Greeks and Hellenized Jews (or at least some of them) were familiar with and accepting of the concept that the Logos was God and by whom God made all things yet without sacrificing the unity of God. Where Christianity becomes scandalous is when it identifies the Logos, which is of God and is God, with the man Jesus.

But what about Paul?

If we ignore the ignore what Trinitarians have taught on the matter and the cultural context of the time (probably not a good idea, either of them), what can we see just from the epistles? When Paul wrote,

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

did he intend separate the Father from the Son? Paul opens the 1 Corinthians placing the Father and the Son on the same level:

  To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:2-3 NKJV]

Paul places the Father and Christ side-by-side and presents them as both being the source of grace and peace. (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians ... the open the same way) He states that the saints are to call on the name of Jesus Christ. Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, is familiar with Joel 2:32 (He quotes it in Romans 10:13):

  And it shall come to pass
  That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
  Shall be saved.
  For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
  As the Lord has said,
  Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Either Paul is being rather sloppy with the Lord's name or he intends to place his readers in the mindset that the Lord Jesus Christ is to be identified with if not identical to the Lord God of Israel.

Given this, it is difficult to believe Paul intends to separate the Father and the Son and place them on separate levels in 1 Corinthians 8:6 why describing them in parallel terms.

Conclusion

Paul knows that his audience is familiar with concept of the Logos. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul brings up the Logos implicitly by saying "through whom are all things" and expects that they will understand the the Lord is of God and is God. And if Paul had left it as this,  "the Father, of whom are all things, ... and one Logos, through whom are all things," you could read it as a Unitarian text. However, Paul goes further. He places the Lord Jesus Christ in the role of the Logos, making the man Jesus of God and God. This can not be read in a Unitarian manner.

Afterthoughts

You ask

  (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

One Being of God shared by Three Persons is not quite the Trinitarian formula. I wonder if you are are using 'being' here similar to 'human being'.

There is, per the Nicene Creed, one God, the Father. The Son and the Spirit are of the same essence/substance/being with the Father because the Father is the source of their essence/substance/being, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding. This could easily lead to the another question about the Monarchy of the Father.

You state

  I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

It is not clear that Paul draws a line or parallel between verse 5 and 6. Rather, he could be drawing a contradiction. The pagans have many false gods and  lords. We have One True God and Lord and they are one. If Paul is drawing a parallel and separating God the Father from the Lord, then he is teaching outright ditheism. In verse 5, he makes no distinction between god and lords, only saying they have many false gods and lords. Have you read Bauckham's God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament? He addresses this fully.


How do Lutherans have their sin forgiven? If a Lutherans sins, how is his sin forgiven?
Must he confess?
Is there a distinction between venial and mortal sin?
What if he sins again the same sin?

Lutherans have their sins forgiven after confession to a pastor who can absolve the penitent.  Here is an extract from an article that discusses the subject at some length:

  The Lutheran Church practices "Confession and Absolution" [referred to as the Office of the Keys] with the emphasis on the absolution, which is God's word of forgiveness. Indeed, Lutherans highly regard Holy Absolution...  In confession, the penitent makes an act of contrition, as the pastor, acting in persona Christi, announces the formula of absolution. Prior to the confession, the penitent is to review the Ten Commandments to examine his or her conscience. In the Lutheran Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, the pastor is bound by the Seal of the Confessional. Luther's Small Catechism says "the pastor is pledged not to tell anyone else of sins to him in private confession, for those sins have been removed." If the Seal is broken, it will result in excommunication.

  In line with Luther's initial statement in his Large Catechism, some Lutherans speak of only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, although later in the same work he calls Confession and Absolution "the third sacrament." The definition of sacrament in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession lists Absolution as one of them. Luther went to confession all his life.

  The Lutheran reformers held that a complete enumeration of sins is impossible and that one's confidence of forgiveness is not to be based on the sincerity of one's contrition nor on one's doing works of satisfaction imposed by the confessor (penance)...  The Lutheran reformers abolished the "satisfaction of deeds," holding that confession and absolution consist of only two parts: the confession of the penitent and the absolution spoken by the confessor.  Faith or trust in Jesus' complete active and passive satisfaction is what receives the forgiveness and salvation won by him and imparted to the penitent by the word of absolution.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(Lutheran_Church)

Another article, “What about… Confession and Absolution?” by Dr. A. L. Barry, 10th President (1992-2001),the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has this to say:

  Confession has two parts. First, that we confess our sins, and second, that we receive absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself not doubting, but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven...  Absolution is the ongoing work of Holy Baptism, in which our old, sinful nature in Adam is drowned and the new man in Christ arises. Through Holy Absolution we receive “the gift of God,” which is forgiveness of sins and “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23)...  Confessing our sins in the Divine Service, we hear the Lord’s servant, our pastor, absolve our sins in the name of Christ. Privately, we go to the pastor for confession and absolution precisely for those sins we are most aware of and those sins that are particularly troubling to us. These we confess to our pastor and hear the words of Christ, “I forgive you.”

  At times, our pastors, with considerable sorrow, may have to tell a person not to attend the Lord’s Supper until he or she has repented of sin. If the situation continues without repentance, the pastor may have to declare to the person, on behalf of the congregation that has made this decision, that he or she is excluded from the church until there is repentance.  Excommunication is a last resort to help a person recognize the extremely dangerous situation he has placed himself in because he will not repent of his sin. It is a final attempt to win someone back from Satan’s influence.   Source: https://www.faithlutherancorning.org/confession-absolution

The Lutheran Church believes that repeated sin hardens the heart and may lead to sinning against the Holy Spirit.  Also, as noted in the previous extract above, unrepentant and repeated sin could result in being excommunicated:

  SIN: Transgression of God's law (Ro 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4). Sin may be divided into original sin (see Sin, Original) and actual sin. Actual sin (every act, thought, emotion (e.g., lust*) conflicting with God's law) may be involuntary or may be done ignorantly (Acts 17:30) and includes sins of commission (cf., e.g., Mt 15:19; Ja 1:15) and sins of omission (Ja 4:17). Sin arouses God's righteous wrath and deserves His punishment. Willful sin sears conscience*; repeated, it hardens the heart; may lead to, but is not identical with, the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.’  (http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SIN

With regard to venial and mortal sin, there is no mention of venial sin, only that all sins manifest total corruption and are deadly:

  VENIAL AND MORTAL SINS: The Lutheran Confessions speak of sin* that is mortal, or deadly, i. e., irreconcilable with faith (Ap IV 48, 64, 109, 115). When believers fall into open sin, faith has departed (SA-III III 43–44). One who obeys his lusts does not retain faith (Ap IV 144). Original sin (see Sin, Original) is mortal; it brings eternal death on those who are not born again (AC II 2 Lat.). One who is dead in sin is insensitive to sin (LC, V: The Sacrament of the Altar, 77–78). Sins remain in believers (SA-III III 40; FC SD II 34). Many regard the following as 7 deadly sins, fatal to spiritual progress: pride,* covetousness,* lust,* anger, gluttony, envy,* sloth. But man cannot weigh, distinguish, or differentiate sins; all sins manifest total corruption (SA-III III 36–38), merit God's wrath (Mt 5:18–19; Gl 3:10; Ja 2:10), and are deadly (Eze 18:4; Ro 6:23); every sin loses its deadly effect when Christ, apprehended by faith, intervenes (Ro 8:l; 1 Jn 1:7, 9; 2:1–2). Source: http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SINS.VENIALANDMORTAL

Another source of information said this:

  The Forgiveness of Sins – Introduction: The Bible reveals that we are accepted by God through the forgiveness of sins in Christ.
  Conclusion: God has declared the world righteous in Christ (objective justification).  He justifies each sinner personally and grants the forgiveness of sins when the Holy Spirit gives faith in Christ (subjective justification).  Although the believer will never be entirely free from sin in this life, the believer wants to turn daily from sin to good works.  The Holy Spirit renews the believer with a daily sanctification so that in the new life of faith, the Christian can offer good works as a thank offering to His Savior God.  Source: https://havasulutherans.org/catechism-explanation/forgiveness-sins/

Finally, I found a 2007 article from the official newspaper of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, which answers the question, “What Gives the Pastor the Power to Absolve?  https://blogs.lcms.org/2007/what-gives-the-pastor-the-power-to-absolve-5-2007/


Foot Washing - Required for salvation? Jesus said to Peter that his feet must be washed to "have part with Jesus" (John 13:9). Jesus also commanded all disciples to wash each other's feet (John 13:14).

Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved).

I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously.

How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church?

Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved).

This sounds like a point to be cautious about.  I know of no place in the scriptures where it says you must wash feet to be saved.
I presume your church practices foot washing because of Jesus' words in John 13:14-15  Specifically Jesus says in verse 14, "you should wash one another's feet".  The key word here is "should" rather than "must".  "Should" was translated from the Greek the word ὀφείλω, which could mean "morally obligated"; however, this falls short of a requirement for salvation.

I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously.
How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church?

One may be surprised that foot washing is practiced by several Christian denominations; however, it is rather unorthodox for a church to insist that you must wash feet to be saved.
I believe that there is a bigger principle at work in John 13:14-15; Jesus teaches us to be humble and serve one another.  Washing guests' feet was considered household servant's work in Jesus' day; yet this (servant's work) is what we're called to as Christians (Matt 20:24-26).  Jesus modeled this servant's attitude with his life - Quoting from Philippians 2:6-7 (italics mine): "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."


Why do some Protestants divide the Blood of Christ into individual cups? A related question asks about Catholic practice (of using a common cup).

In some Protestant Churches — I’ve experienced this myself in both Baptist and Free Churches — the wine at the Communion service is poured into small glasses and distributed amongst the congregation. Everyone drinks their glass at the same time.

The Biblical account tells us that Jesus used a single cup at the Last Supper. While it seems many Protestant Churches attach paramount importance to the Biblical account, why do they not follow suit in using a common cup?

Because they want to.

As stated already in other answers, they may use more than one cup for sanitary or efficiency purposes. But the real answer is that the issue of whether or not the communion liquid* is distributed in one vessel or several is a non-doctrinal, purely preferential issue with most Protestants. Jesus may have used one cup, but most Protestants don't believe this was meant to be a strict representation of how the Lord's Supper must be performed.

Personal Anecdote: I grew up in a church body that used little plastic cups. We probably did that because it would have taken forever to get everyone through a line to one liquid source. I'm in a church body now that does communion in smaller groups, so we each break off a piece of bread and dip it in one cup of wine. To Protestants it's just a matter of preference.

*Protestants don't believe it's literally Christ's blood. They believe it's just juice/wine that is meant to be symbolic.


Are people 'made for each other'? If Eve was made by Yahweh to be a partner for Adam, are we able to then accurately know that there really is someone out there 'made for you'? And if so, does this partnership (even if not called a 'marriage') continue in Heaven? And could this person actually be someone you never get to meet during your time in this life (or someone other than the person you marry while here), perhaps because of the consequences/effects of original sin from the start?

Your question is one that I frequently encounter especially from teenagers. And usually I find that the real question they want answered is 'Is there someone God created to be my soul mate for life?' Of course neither I nor anyone else except God himself can answer that question. However I will be happy to tell you what Scriptures say about the subject.
Mar 10:6 through 9  King James Version

6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So what point is Jesus making with that statement? He is telling us that God's intent was that when two people marry it is God's intention for that marriage to last a lifetime. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to select our mate very carefully.
The reason that selection is so important is that as we see in verses 7 and 8 That mate whom you select and you become one and the same, from that time on what one does effects the other whether it be how to spend money or who gets up in the middle of the night when the baby cries.
So does God create a specific person for you to the exclusion of all others? I cannot imagine that that would be the case since God gave us free will, and with that free will we are free to choose any partner we want, and if God only gave one person to choose from where would our free will be?
I in fact believe that for some people, it is God's intent that those persons mot have a mate and that they dedicate themselves to his service. The Apostle Paul for instance said:
1st Corinthians 7:1 and 2  KJV

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

And:
1st Corinthians 7:6 through 9  KJV

6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7  For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Here Paul is saying that it will please God if you decide to remain single and remain totally dedicated to his service, but he is also aware that it is very difficult to control your emotions, and that it is far better to marry than to go against God's commandments.
This precept is the reason for Priest and Nuns not to marry and join their chosen profession of dedication to service of the LORD.
Finally; Let's examine why god created Eve.
Genesis 2:18  KJV

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

So we learn from this Scripture that God created  woman so that man would not be alone. But not just to be a companion as we see in the second part of this verse she was to specifically be his helper, or in other words they were intended to work together to secure the blessings of God whether they be tangible or intangible.
These are some things you need to keep in mind when making a decision who to marry, and as a Christian one very important thing is to find someone who will work together with you to secure God's blessings. That is the reason for the following Scripture;
2nd Corinthians 6:14  KJV

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


Why didn't the universe fall apart when Jesus died? In Colossians 1:16-17, it talks about how the world was made by Jesus and for Jesus. But it also says that "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together", so why didn't we all die and the universe, fall apart when Jesus died as it says that "in him all things hold together". Does this mean that Jesus's death wasn't fully death?

It's alright if you aren't a Protestant and you answer the question but it would be preferable to hear an answer from a Protestant.

I am answering the question from Evangelical Protestant perspective.

The reason the universe didn't fall apart when Jesus died is that death does not mean "cessation of existence."

  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart
  from works is dead.

  James 2:26 (ESV)

James 2:26 says that death is a separation of body and spirit. Both do not undergo annihilation after death. Rather, both merely separated.

Other Bible verses agree:

  . 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,
  God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into
  paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God
  knows—

  2 Corinthians 12:2-3 (ESV)

  Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the
  body and at home with the Lord

  2 Corinthians 5:8 (ESV)

This is perfectly attested in the death of Jesus Christ:

  Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your
  hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

  Luke 23:46 (ESV)

At Jesus' death, his spirit did not cease.Rather, he commited his spirit to his Father.

  Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing
  a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

  John 19:38 ( ESV)

On the other hand, Jesus' body was buried.

Conclusion

Jesus, being God who became flesh, identifying with our limitation by his own choice (John 1:1,14; Phil. 2:6-7) to save us (Matthew 1:21) ,was not the only person who is fully God. The Father and the Holy Spirit, his co-equals do exist (Matthew 28:19) to take hold of the universe.Jesus is both God and Man ( Col. 2:9) and his death is 100% real.

References:

http://www.gotquestions.org/absent-from-the-body.html

https://carm.org/soul-cease-exist-after-death


How many New Testament Manuscripts do we have from the period between the first century and the fourth century? How many early New Testament Manuscripts do we have from the first four centuries of the Christian faith?
(It does not have to be a complete manuscript of a book to count)

How many early New Testament manuscripts do we have?

You ask about the first four centuries, until about 400 AD. I am inclined to initially answer through 300 AD, because I believe that period is more important for historical* reasons.

This page on Wikipedia lists the 130 papyri of the New Testament that we know of, together with what content each has. For our purposes, we need to sort each of the three tables by date, then count the early ones. Be careful counting, because the same papyrus may appear multiple times in the table.

I count 27 in the first table, 19 in the second, and 22 in the third. The total number of NT papyri in the first three centuries is then about 68.

Very few codices (the other types of manuscripts) were written by AD 300 as far as I know, so that should be close to the total count for all manuscripts.

Another web page has a similar table, but in date order. The result was different, but in the ballpark. On that site, I count:

Manuscripts up to 300 AD: 56 (53 papyri and 3 uncials)

Manuscripts up to 400 AD: 102 (the "versions" are not in Greek)

*About 300 AD, the Emperor Diocletian severely persecuted the Christian church, and probably destroyed a large percentage of the Bible manuscripts extant at that time. There have been disputes whether the best or worst manuscripts were destroyed, and how the Church chose to replace them later. Apparently there was a single order for fifty copies of the Bible later, paid for by the Emperor Constantine if I remember right. Some have suggested changes were deliberately made in those copies.


Can people come back from Heaven or Hell? Is it possible for a person to come back to earth (e.g. as a ghost) from Heaven or Hell?  We have had some weird happenings at our house, and I am trying to figure out what is going on.  Our room mate believes it is her grand father "coming back from the dead" to comfort her. However, it is my understanding from the Bible that once a person dies, they go to Heaven or Hell, based on whether or not they know Jesus as their Savior.  Is it possible they can come back in spirit form though, especially in times of crisis?  I know there are angels and demons and possibly other spirits.  I am trying to find out what this "presence" is, if it really could be her grandfather, or is it an angel / demon / other spirit.  I would be interested to hear from different denominations as well.  The following passage, and others show me there are "unclean spirits", which I am not sure if these are demons or something else:

  Matthew 12:43 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

The following verses, where Paul is speaking about false apostles, leads me to believe that Satan, and I am guessing other demons, can falsely appear to be good.

  2 Corinthians 11:13-14
  13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

Edit:

This is related to, but more specific than the existing question:
Does anybody teach specifically about the existence of ghosts?

It may be loosely related to the following question as well:
Can a person lose his/her salvation?

The short answer is no. There are many reports of people "seeing" Heaven or Hell and coming back, but as for entering, there is no return. That being said, Heaven and Hell are spiritual states (at least before Second Coming/Apocalypse) and not physical places; so, in theory, being in Heaven or Hell would rule out "presence" (in a non-physical sense) on Earth.

Take miracles which are attributed to saints. Such happenings suggest that human souls in Heaven can have some effect on the physical world. This being said, it seems much more common that spiritual interactions on Earth are on account to angels/demons.

But coming back as a "ghost", that is, a human spirit that has physical presence on Earth is not possible. Accordingly, I do not think there is a definitive answer to the nature of the "presence" which your room-mate feels; though I would be careful considering it to be her grandfather himself.

--Roman Catholic


When did the word "Catholic" become a proper noun? After reading "At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?" on this site I enjoyed a bit of research into the etymology and meaning of the word "Catholic," and as part of that research read both the article "Yeast," by Jesuit Walter Ong and "'Catholic' Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does" by Daniel Horan.  It has led me to a question.

The word "Catholic" appears to have originally been an adjective, describing the nature of the Kingdom of God on the earth.  I noted its use by Ignatius of Antioch, but though it's easy to assume he only used it as an adjective, it's difficult to discern whether his use was specifically that of an adjective or if the church had already adopted the term as a proper noun.

When, at least for practical purposes, did the word come to be used as a proper noun, identifying any one or more specific organizations?

I've been watching this question for a few days now and decided that today I would hazard a Wikipedia-fueled attempt at finding a plausible answer. Here goes...

The word "Catholic" in reference to a specific organization seemed to be originally used to distinguish the Church of God from the churches of heretics. The earliest form of this use I found was from the Catechetical Lectures of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, which he delivered around 350 A.D. He says:

  But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly Acts 19:14), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.

Now, the use of the word "catholic" here can still technically be translated as "universal" given that the churches he referenced followed heretical teachings and are suggested in this passage to not have been regarded as true organizations with the mission of following Christ. However, the word is still making a clear distinction between two groups here.

Another instance of the word "Catholic" being used in a distinguishing fashion is in the Edict of Thessalonica, published during the reign of Emperor Theodosius I:

  We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

Here is probably the most blatant use of "Catholic" as a proper noun per se, as the word "title" is specifically used to define a "Catholic Christian."

In conclusion, it seems that the word "Catholic" was originally used as a proper noun to distinguish the original Church from heretical sects. Technically, I as a Protestant am a heretic in the Catholic understanding, so such a usage is still accurate in that sense and conveys similar meaning.

Catechetical Lecture from New Advent

Edict of Thessalonica translation


How did Luther and Calvin view Christian perfectionism? The question is as simple as the title.  Some Christians believe we can enter a state without sin.  How did Luther and Calvin view that kind of concept?

Martin Luther and John Calvin followed the tradition of St. Augustine in abhorring any theoretical belief in a state of sinlessness, whether for a moment, day, year, or whatever.

They seem to have regarded sinless perfection as the vain imagination of human pride and a result of our sinfulness.  For example, commenting on Psalms  106:6, Calvin said:

  How very abominable, then, is the pride of those who hardly imagine that they offend in the least possible way; nay, who even, like certain fanatics of the day, conceive that they have attained to a state of sinless perfection! (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 106:6)

The very words ‘sinless state of perfection’ even for a moment amount to near blasphemy in the mind of a person who is aware of himself and has a due regard to the nature of sin and its seriousness, according to the reformers.

Luther explains what it means to live by the Spirit not ‘sinning’ in this way:

  This life, then, is a life of being healed from sin, it is not a life of sinlessness, with the cure completed and perfect health attained. The church is the inn and the infirmary for those who are sick and in need of being made well. But heaven is the palace of the healthy and the righteous. As blessed Peter says in his Second Epistle 3:13 that the Lord will build “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” Righteousness does not yet dwell here, but it is preparing a dwelling place for itself here in the meantime by healing sin. All the saints have had this understanding of sin, as David prophesied in Ps. 32:5 ff. And thus they all have confessed that they were sinners. (Luther’s Works 25.262-264)

In describing what this theoretical state would actually be Luther provides a very reasonable explanation to show this can never happen for a moment on this side of heaven:

  If we were pure of all sin, and if we burned with a perfect love toward God and our neighbor, then we would certainly be righteous and holy through love, and there would be nothing more that God could require of us. That does not happen in this present life but must be postponed until the life to come. We do indeed receive the gift and the first fruits of the Spirit here (Rom. 8:23), so that we do begin to love; but this is very feeble. If we loved God truly and perfectly, as the Law requires when it says (Deut. 6:5): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.,” then poverty would be as pleasant for us as riches, sorrow the same as pleasure, death the same as life. Indeed, one who loved God truly and perfectly would not be able to live very long but would soon be devoured by his love. But human nature now is so submerged in sin that it cannot think or feel anything correct about God. It does not love God; it hates Him violently. Therefore, as John says (1 John 4:10), “not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (Luther’s Works Volume 27.65)

Luther quotes St. Augustine in another place to show how uniform his view is to that wise old Christian, in times past:

  Augustine says in his 29th Epistle, to blessed Jerome: “Love is the power by which a person loves what he ought to love. In some people this is stronger and in others weaker, and in still others there is none at all; but it is never in its fullest degree, so increased, in any man as long as he lives. But as long as it can be increased, what is less than it ought to be comes from sin. Because of this defect ‘there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins’ (cf. 1 Kings 8:46). And because of this defect ‘no man living is righteous before God’ (Ps. 143:2). Because of this defect, ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). Also because of this defect, no matter how much we progress, we are forced to say: ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Matt. 6:12), even though in Baptism all our sins of word, deed, and thought have been forgiven.”  So far Augustine. But the same relation as for Baptism, indeed, a much stronger one, is in force for penitence and indulgences. From all of this it is obvious that there is no sin which is venial according to its substance and its nature, but also no merit. For even the good works which are done while the tinder of sin and sensuality are fighting against them are not of such intensity and purity as the Law requires, since they are not done with all of our strength, but only with the spiritual powers which struggle against the powers of the flesh. Thus we sin even when we do good. (Luther’s Works Volume 25.278)


Who were the main Protestant precursors? While Martin Luther is the origin of a particular protestant-reformist movement named Lutheran and of its derivative churches, it's unclear to me whether he should be considered responsible to the entire protestant reformation.

Considering Luther's venomous antiseminitism, it is further unclear to me because many so called Protestant movements are Judaism oriented ranging from the Seventh Day Adventists, to the Messianic Jews, to some Black Hebrew Israelites.

Were there precursor movements to Martin Luther which generally shared concepts of the Lutheran movement, but which remained independent from it to modern times?

No, Luther certainly should not be viewed as "responsible [for] the entire protestant reformation". Throughout previous centuries, various non-Catholic church groups held to some beliefs that came to be recognisable as Reformation theology and practice. However, that subject is so vast, it cannot possibly be covered here. I recommend you study the book "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent (Pickering Classic first published in 1931 through to 1985 at least.)

Prior to the reformation starting, Catholic scholar Erasmus (1467-1536) was a serious editor of Latin and Greek texts and produced an epoch-making edition of the Greek New Testament (the first ever printed and published, in 1516, the year before the Reformation began). The Romanists furiously blamed him for ‘letting Luther happen’. He was spoken of obliquely as "The egg that Luther hatched".

In 1505 Erasmus had published Valla’s work as ‘Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum’. Valla had earlier incurred displeasure in Rome by showing to be a mere fable the supposed MSS relating to a ‘Donation of Constantine’ bestowing temporal power with the Bishops of Rome. Valla declared that theologians must work from the grammatical sense for the meaning of the text, to which Erasmus agreed.

Erasmus next travelled a lot, searching for Greek NT MSS, and then managed to construct a single continuous text of the Greek NT through comparisons and collation of a few MSS.  His 1516 edition had his version of the Latin Vulgate NT, supported in a parallel column by his newly compiled text of the Greek NT. He used the Greek as a plumb line to vindicate his Latin differences. Many valid criticisms of his work were admitted to by Erasmus himself from the start. A fourth, improved edition was later produced.

Before Luther got going, Erasmus had produced his NT in its original Greek. Luther got the printed text in Wittenberg as he was lecturing on the 9th chapter of Romans. From Erasmus's accompanying translation he learned of the inaccuracy of the Vulgate rendering of 'do penance' instead of 'be penitent'.

Erasmus and Luther had much in common. Both insisted that the church of their day had relapsed into a Judaistic type of legalism condemned by the apostle Paul. Christianity, said Erasmus, has been made to consist not in loving one's neighbour but in abstaining from butter and cheese during Lent. What good are indulgences to those who do not mend their ways? Both men had a quarrel with the pope, Luther because the pontiffs imperilled the salvation of souls, Erasmus because they fostered external ceremonies and, at times, impeded free investigation.

Poor Erasmus ended up falling between two stools – the Romanists blamed him furiously for ‘letting Luther happen’. He was spoken of obliquely as "The egg that Luther hatched". But the Lutherans could not accept his not falling in with Luther.
Article by C.P. Hallihan in Issue No. 615, April-June 2016, Quarterly Record (Trinitarian Bible Society)

My material is a combination from that article and the book "Here I Stand - Martin Luther" by Roland Bainton (Lion Publishing 1978). As for your second question about Luther's antisemitism, that is also admitted to in Bainton's book.

  "He had earlier believed that contemporary Jews could not be blamed
  for the sins of their fathers, and sympathised with why they hated
  Catholicism so much; “We should use toward the Jews not the pope’s but
  Christ’s law of love.” Sadly, he came to change that view when his
  endeavour to proselytize some rabbis failed. A rumor that a Jew had
  been suborned by the papists to murder him was believed. Later, news
  came that in Moravia, Christians were being induced to Judaize. Then
  he came out with a vulgar blast in which he recommended that all Jews
  be deported to Palestine. Failing that, they should be forbidden to
  practice usury, should be compelled to earn their living on the land,
  their synagogues should be burned, and their books (including the
  Hebrew scriptures) should be taken from them. One paragraph reads,
  "Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever
  they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in
  which sheer self¬glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God
  and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."

That tract is a shame and no excuse is offered. Quote from p379-380 of Bainton's book. Many Protestant groups today would offer no excuse for Luther's antisemitism either. We are far removed from Luther's era and popular attitudes in Europe back then. I hope this goes some way to answering your questions, the scope of which is vast.


What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life? We read at Gen 5:1-2:
""... When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.  Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created. "
That implies that each human being continues to belong to his/her  gender in the life-after-life. Now, there are some who opt to change their gender for various reasons, former wrestler Gabbi Tuft being the latest edition to the list. To what gender do such individuals belong to, in the life to come  is a matter of curiosity for all. Will they retain the gender in which they had been born , or will they change over to the newly assumed gender , in the life to come ? My  question therefore,  is: What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life ?

"Sex-change operations" are mutilations of the body, changes in the accidents (not substance) of a human.(The soul doesn't have a sex; St. Ambrose On Virginity ch. 15: "anima enim sexum non habet", "for the soul doesn't have a sex".)

Only scars of wounds, not lost limbs or major mutilations, can remain in resurrected bodies, as St. Thomas writes in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 82 a. 1 ad 5:The scars of wounds will not be in the saints, nor were they in Christ, in so far as they imply a defect, but as signs of the most steadfast virtue whereby the saints suffered for the sake of justice and faith: so that this will increase their own and others' joy (cf. q. 54 a. 4 ad 3). Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii, 19):We feel an undescribable love for the blessed martyrs so as to desire to see in that kingdom the scars of the wounds in their bodies, which they bore for Christ's name. Perchance indeed we shall see them for this will not make them less comely but more glorious. A certain beauty will shine in them, a beauty though in the body, yet not of the body but of virtue.Nevertheless those martyrs who have been maimed and deprived of their limbs will not be without those limbs in the resurrection of the dead, for to them it is said (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish."

∴, the sex of humans with their resurrected bodies will be that in which God created them.


Isn't "Jehovah-Jireh" (and other such names) just the name of a place? It seems like many of what are referred to as the names of God are actually the names of places that have been dedicated to God:

Jehovah-nissi - Moses built an altar and called that it Jehovah-nissi (Ex. 17:15)

Jehovah-jireh - Abraham called the place where he almost sacrificed his son Jehovah-Jireh (Gen 22:14)

Jehovah-shalom - Gideon built and altar (Jdg 6:24)

Is there an element in the Hebrew that I'm missing? Sure, these clearly describe attributes of God, but can they rightly be called His names?

Please note that I fully understand that Jehovah is God's name. If I call my house, God-Dwells-Among-His-People, then God doesn't suddenly get a new name. Yet many Christians talk about these names for places in the Bible and say they are the names to God. Why do they do that? Is it a proper thing to do?

Titles vs. Names

I think the confusion stems from a lack of precision in our terminology, where we talk about the names of God when we really mean the titles of God.

This has been reinforced by decades of Christian literature that refer to the names of God when really discussing His titles. Take this devotional for example.

This distinction is easier to see in the suzerainty treaties of the ancient Middle East where the preamble begins with the name followed by a list of titles ascribed by the vassal. Take a look at the preamble in this Akkadian Hittite treaty for example: "These are the words of the  <name>Sun Mursilis, <followed by titles>the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, the son of Suppiluliumas, etc."

Famously, the pentateuchal covenants are structured like suzerainty treaties and the Mosaic covenant begins with the LORD's name followed by a title ('the deliverer' which one might label the act following His name) in Exodus 20:2: "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." There are many other examples in the OT.

I only mention this to show that there is a distinction between 'names' and 'titles' in the literature of this period and especially when doing exegetical work, there may be value in noting the difference.

A specific example: Jehovah Jireh

Seems to me that the naming of an altar, especially by the patriarchs, was usually an act of commemoration or thanksgiving, indicating something they wanted to say about the character or activity of YHWH in the episode that transpired.

This is certainly the case with Jehovah-jireh where the naming of the place commemorated the LORD's activity in Gen 22 in providing the sacrifice in Isaac's stead. Abraham was no doubt greatly relieved and uses the honorific 'jireh' to mark the occasion and it's location.

The key to me is that unlike with names, titles can be assigned by anyone and to anyone. That's why we have a William the Conqueror, an Ivan the Terrible and a Bloody Mary in our vocabulary today.

And Jehovah Jireh is structurally an honorific much like William the Conqueror, which others used to describe William I.

Abraham does the same at this altar in ascribing the title 'Provider' to YHWH, leaving Christians many millennia later a beautiful honorific to ascribe to God in our daily usage.


How does Luke target gentiles in the New Testament? It is known that the Gospel of Luke targets directly gentile Christians and Greeks.

Matthew uses references to the Old Testament, Jewish customs and ideologies to target his audience of Jews, but what does Luke do?

How does Luke target specifically gentile Christians?

There are several things that suggest Luke wrote for a Gentile Greek audience:

The Greek vocabulary is vastly more sophisticated and more "classic" in style and construction.  The Greek betrays Luke as well-educated and highly intelligent.
Luke's writing style shows an intimate acquaintance with current culture, idiom and expression in well educated Gentile circles.
Col 4:11-14 suggests that Luke is a Gentile as he is not listed amongst the circumcision group
By contrast with Matthew's genealogy back to Abraham (Jewish ancestor), Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam (ancestor of the world).
Luke's choice of incidents in Jesus' life feature more Gentiles than the other Gospels, as well as Jesus interest in Gentiles (He includes the large Perean section of Jesus' ministry that is absent from other Gospels.)
Luke mentions Roman centurions more than other writers and always in a favourable light.
Luke's writing has no trace of Jewish exclusiveness which occasionally occurs in Matthew and Mark
Luke's dating of events uses the tenure of various officials

Thus, it has been clear that Luke was a Gentile writing for Gentiles.


According to Reformed Theology how can we saved by Grace 'Alone' and Faith 'Alone'? Two of the Five Solas are:

Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone
Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone

If salvation is by "grace alone", how can "faith alone" be added as well? Only one of these two should be chosen in order to use the term "alone". From scripture grace and faith work together, e.g.:

... we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand ... (Romans 5:2, ESV)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. (Ephesians 2:8, ESV)

Suppose someone builds a bridge over a chasm to rescue a group of hikers from a great disaster, and announces to all hikers that the bridge has been built. Arriving on the safe side, someone tells the hikers: "You arrived here only through the goodwill of the bridgebuilder", and "You arrived here only because you actually crossed the bridge". How logical is that? Clearly, the two must work together (and not together, although separately alone)?

These two slogans were used to explain two major disagreements Protestants had with what the Catholic Church was teaching, and yes, they are designed to work together! They don't compete, they are alone in their own respective fields.

Sola Fide refers to the belief that works are not a means or prerequisite for salvation. People are declared to be justified (righteous) purely on the basis of trusting God to fulfil his promise to save us through the gracious act of Jesus taking the hit for us on the cross. This was the major defining belief of the Protestant reformation.

Sola Gratia refers to the belief that nothing a person does contributes to their salvation. From God's perspective no person has ever merited any component of their salvation - salvation is purely a gift (grace) from God. There is a lot of overlap between this and Sola Fide. But it means that the game never changes. Once you're saved you still live on the basis of grace and faith. The good works Christians do will never be anything other than graces from God. I've also heard that it is a kind of summary of the other Solas: Our faith is a gift from God, not something we produce ourselves. Christ Alone means we come to God purely through Jesus, with no human mediators. Grace Alone means that Jesus was never obligated to do anything, especially not come to the earth and die - every action of God is a gift. Similarly God was never obligated to reveal himself to us through scripture - the Bible is a gift.

The two work together, and many Protestants will say that we are saved "by grace through faith", exactly what your verse from Ephesians says.


Does the latest Scofield Reference Bible delete or substantially alter any of the original notes? There's some controversy about differences between the original Scofield reference bible and the latest editions, which were edited by a committee after Dr Scofield's death. I'm wondering whether any of Scofield's original notes have been modified or deleted, and if so which ones and to what extent? Or is the new edition just an "amplification" of the original which adds more notes and maps and etc, but leaves the original text as it was?

In 1967, Oxford University Press published a revision of the Scofield Bible with a slightly modernized KJV text, and a muting of some of the tenets of Scofield's theology. The editors' introduction states that these revisions follow the same doctrine:

However, The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (Oxford University Press, 2010) comes to the opposite conlusion regarding the alterations:

  "The continuing popularity of the 1917 notes may reflect the
  preference of the purchasers for the original and full-strength
  Scofield." Mangum & Sweetnam suggest the popularity of the 1917
  edition may also reflect a strong commitment to the KJV translation.
  Scofield was accused of promoting "two ways of salvation" with a
  dispensation of works before the death and resurrection of Christ and
  a dispensation of grace afterwards. In the revision of 1967,
  Scofield's note on John 1:17 "was rewritten, and now seemed to say the
  opposite of Scofield's original." Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of
  the King James Version, 1611-2011 (Oxford University Press, 2010),
  246-47.

Recent editions of the KJV Scofield Study Bible have moved the textual changes made in 1967 to the margin.


What was the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison? In Contemporary English Version we see at Matt 27:17 :

"So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”.

Not many versions of the Bible give us the idea that the first name of Barabbas (literally,son of the father) was Jesus.

My question is : What does the Catholic tradition say about the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison ?

Jesus as Barrabas' first name does not appear in any Latin manuscripts.  The reason it appears in the Critical Greek text - from which the CEV seems to have been derived - is explained in Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

  The reading preserved today in several Greek manuscripts and early
  versions was known to Origen, who declares in his commentary on the
  passage, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also
  called Jesus, and perhaps [the omission is] right.” (Origen discloses
  in what follows his reason for disapproving of the reading Jesus
  Barabbas; it cannot be right, he implies, because “in the whole range
  of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called]
  Jesus.”)

  In a tenth century uncial manuscript S 028 and in about twenty
  minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient
  copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called
  ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, Τίνα
  θέλετε ἀπὸ τῶν δύο ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν
  λεγόμενον Χριστόν; for apparently the paternal name of the robber was
  ‘Barabbas,’ which is interpreted ‘Son of the teacher.’ ” This
  scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts either to
  Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the sixth
  century) or to Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributed to Origen,
  who may indeed be its ultimate source.

Although the CT committee admitted the phrase Ἰησοῦν and Ἰησοῦν τὸν before Βαραββᾶν in Matthew 27:16 and 27:17, respectively, the Greek text was enclosed in square brackets.  The reading was assigned certainty category "C", indicating that "the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text."

Augustine seems to have been the only Latin (pre-schism) Church Father to have commented specifically on these verses (On the Harmony of the Gospels, III.VIII.32) and he makes no mention of Barrabas' first name possibly being "Jesus".