Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works? I used to think that sola fide meant salvation by faith irrespective of works. Then I started reading about it and realized it means salvation by faith with works.

Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life. -- Martin Luther
We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. -- Martin Luther

In my view, its a very subtle and insignificant distinction from salvation by faith and works. Take a look at these pictures:

As far as I can tell, both doctrinal traditions will save the exact same group of people.
Am I correct? Is the difference inconsequential? If so, why is so much effort put forth to distinguish the two?

First a disclaimer, I come from the camp that salvation is by faith alone.  The answer will be coming from my perspective, since the question seems to be geared toward those who hold this view.  It also intentionally goes against the definition of Christianity as accepted for the sake of this community because I think that it's the only way to address the question.  I fully expect opposing answers and down-votes, but I'm also attempting to answer the question to the best of my ability because it's important.

The difference is very important.  It's not inconsequential at all.

The reason it is important comes down to three things (in addition to what I read in the Scriptures):

Pride
Giving the glory to God, who deserves it.
The command to worship God in spirit and in truth. (Emphasis mine.)

  Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
  should boast.

To my view, and those who hold it, if we are attempting to add works to faith, then we are not depending solely on God or the saving grace of Jesus.  We are depending at least somewhat on ourselves.  Since we're told that we are saved by faith along apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28) if we try to add our own works on top of it, we're not obeying in faith.

We're placing part of the faith in ourselves, and (this may be harsh) we're calling God a liar by rejecting His clear word on the subject.  In essence, we're worshiping a "god" of our own making - one we've created in our mind, which is, by definition, idolatry.

This is not to say that works aren't important.  Works are a sign that we have already been saved by faith, and something we do out of gratitude.  I personally would argue that someone who is not showing good works is probably not truly saved because they are not showing the fruit of salvation.  But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it because I don't know the heart or state of salvation of anyone.

There's a good article on the subject here.

I'm adding this later as an illustration that may make the answer of whether it's a "minor detail" more precise.

Expanding on what I said about taking credit for our own salvation as being pride.  Pride is in and of itself a sin.  God hates pride.

Even a little bit of taking credit for our owns salvation is like having a "little bit" of sin. It's not something that can be seen in shades of gray.  It really is an all-or-nothing black-or-white issue.  Our pastor often uses an illustration in which he holds up a clear glass of water and asks if anyone would object to drinking it.  Then he asks, "OK, let's add just one drop of urine to it.  How many of you would drink it then?"  It's gross, yes. Disgusting.  But that's the point.  God's holiness is so supreme that even the smallest hint of sin is sickening to Him.  Adding the least bit of our own "works" to His gift pollutes the gift.

In Isaiah 64:6, we read that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags.  Not our sin, our righteousness - the very best we are capable of is worthless to Him.  How could we possibly hope to add to our own salvation when the best we can do is no good at all?


What is the biblical basis for the doctrine that salvation can be lost? In contrast to the doctrine of Eternal Security, many denominations believe that a person can, in fact, lose his or her salvation.

So, what is the biblical basis or biblical argument for the doctrine of the Loss of Salvation?  Put another way, what is the biblical argument against Eternal Security?

The Biblical Basis comes from the following verses (whether interpreted literally, figuratively, or out of context - these are the main texts used):
Core Verses
 - Galations 5:1-5 "fall from grace"
 - Romans 11:18-22 being "cut off"
  - Rev. 22:19 unforgivable sins
 - Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Cor 6"9, Galations 5:19, Revelation 21:6-8 unforgivable sins
"Supporting" text
 - Matthew 6:5; 19:21-35; 10:22-32
 - Luke 12:41-46
 - 1 Cor. 15:1-2
 - Colossians 1:22-23
 - Hebrews 3:6, 14
 - 2 Peter 2:20-22

The biblical basis is clear based on these texts.

In Gal 5:1-5, Paul warns of those who have "fallen away from Grace."
Again in Romans 11:18-22 he warns not to be "cut off" and many people who believe you can lose your salvation interpret this to mean that God will "prune" the saved (those who have fallen away).

Revelation 21:6-8 has a list of people who will burn in the fire and sulfur and those who believe you can lose your salvation state that once you sin after salvation you are adding sin to the Cross and therefore taint it again. Therefore, these verses show that if you are a liar you cannot enter heaven which means you have lost your salvation and need to accept Christ again.

Again in Revelation 22:19 it says that "God will take away his share in the tree of life" which leads the reader to believe that someone who once was saved has been stricken from the "book of Life."

And of course Hebrews 6:4-6 where the author refers to "falling away" after being enlightened. This, as Drew put it, is the main text along with Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32 which cover the "unforgivable sin." They claim that if someone commits the unforgivable sin after accepting salvation then they MUST lose their salvation because the sin is, well, unforgivable.

The other verses I have listed make small references to either falling away, lists of people who cannot enter the kingdom of God, or other minute details that might mean we can, in fact, lose our salvation. I hope that answered your question for the biblical basis/argument for it.


Do Protestants believe it is easier for New Testament believers to fulfill the moral law than it was before Christ? Jeremiah prophesied that on the new covenant the law would be written on the hearts of the believer (Jr 31:33)

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and
write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall
be My people."

and the prophet Ezequiel said that God was going to take the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh instead (Ez 36:26)

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will
take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of
flesh"

Do texts like these give enough ground for us to say that the Christian is more able to fulfill God's commands than the Old Testament Jewish believer was?
What is an overview of the major Protestant answers to this question?

Welcome to the group. I'm new here myself.
Do those verses show  that the Christian is more able to fulfill God's commands than the old testament believer was? No, they do not, but maybe not in the way you might initially think.
Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:26 are both in the OT, and indicate that they are the only way to fulfill God's commands. Your question assumes that the moral law could be fulfilled in the OT in a different way than in the NT. That's not the case at all.
Paul goes into some detail on this point.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2:16

Note here that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. There is no distinction between OT and NT, Jew or Gentile. In short, it is impossible to be justified by anything other than faith in Christ.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” Galatians 3:10

If one chooses the path of the works of the law, the only way to avoid a curse is to keep them all, all the time. But faith in Christ is the only viable option because nobody, OT or NT, Jew or Gentile, has kept the law perfectly. Paul spends a big chunk of Romans explaining this.

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law Romans 2:12
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Whether without the law or in the law, we are judged and destined to perish because all of us have sinned and fall short.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Romans 4:1-3
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

Here Paul points out that the promise was given to Abraham through faith, not the law. Right at the source of the chosen people, the path to righteousness has been faith.

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:26-29

So here we find Paul's encapsulation of what true conversion is, for both Jew and Gentile. To be truly one of God's chosen people, a true Jew so to speak, one must be a Jew inwardly. Circumcision of the flesh has no moral worth in itself because circumcision of the heart is and has always been what truly counts. So also, outward compliance with the law, in whatever imperfect form it may take (see Isaiah 64:6), has no moral worth in itself because inward compliance with the law is and has always been what truly counts.
A believer in the OT could fulfill God's law in exactly the same way as a Christian does, by participating in the New Covenant promise of that law being written in the heart and mind. So the answer to your question is, No.
Now you might wonder how someone during OT times could be part of the New Covenant. But that's for another time.


How to learn to chant the Liturgy of the Hours? I went to solemn vespers for the first time in my life last Friday and it was super awesome.  I brought my liturgy of the hours book with, thinking I might need it, but they provided a card with the whole thing on it.  Complete with some sort of music part where one word was underlined and it corresponded to what note to change  to.  So it was like "Lord come to my assistance" and "assist" was underlined because the pitch changed there.

So, my question is, since my breviary doesn't have that cool stuff in it, how does one learn how to do it?  For both personal recitation and for leading small groups in it?  Are the pitch changes solely based on the meter?  And why do we switch people intoning the words every other line? When doing small group Liturgy of the Hours, we usually break it up into the paragraphs.

I am glad you enjoyed sung Liturgy of the Hours.

The "music part where one word was underlined" is called the mediant, and the music changes accordingly with that word (or syllable).  If you are working with a text that does not have the mediant identified (such as a common breviary), you determine it on the basis of meter and spacing.  It is only possible to understand how to do this with accuracy once you are familiar with the tone.  Usually praying often with a community teaches you how the community finds the mediant, and you naturally learn how to do it on your own.

A "tone" or "psalm tone" is a music setting for the Liturgy of the Hours.  There are many different sets of tones and styles of chanting.  These can differ based on geographical location, language group, religious order, or other factors.  One common set of tones in the U.S. is the St. Meinrad Psalm Tones (which come from St. Meinrad's Benedictine monastery).

Different groups and psalm tones will also break up lines differently.  The basic back-and-forth, two-party structure of the chant is called "choral recitation" (because choir-style seating has traditionally been used to represent the two sides).  The simplest approach is to break up every other line, but it is more common to switch sides after each pair of lines, or especially after each stanza.  The difficulty with the last option is that different psalm stanzas have a different number of lines, so psalm tones usually have ways of handling stanzas of different lengths, ways which often include a flex line that can be added for stanzas with a odd number of lines.

More info: Reciting Tone.


Is it possible for a non-Jew to join Messianic Judaism? For this question, I would like to first define that someone is a Jew if they meet the halakhic definition. This definition is just for the sake of moving the discussion toward an answer.

Is it possible for a non-Jew to join Messianic Judaism?

"Messianic Judaism" is not a single denomination or sect; the term covers a broad range of beliefs and practices. Various groups exist; often the disagreements concern the extent toward which the Mosaic law must be followed today. I'm going to answer based on the views of two groups: the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), and the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC). 40-60% of Messianic Judaism's congregations are Gentiles, so this is an important question.
The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America
I'm going to sacrifice accuracy a bit to be concise: The MJAA tries to balance between Christianity and Judaism; if forced to distance themselves from one they tend to align themselves with evangelical Christianity.
From the MJAA Statement of Faith:

We recognize that Jewish people (physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, whether through the mother's or the father's blood-line) who place their faith in Israel's Messiah, Yeshua, continue to be Jewish according to the Scriptures (Romans 2:28-29). Gentiles who place their faith in Yeshua, are "grafted into" the Jewish olive tree of faith (Romans 11:17-25) becoming spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29).
...
We acknowledge that the New Covenant body of believers is composed of both Jews and Gentiles who have received Yeshua the Messiah as the Promised Redeemer. The "middle wall of partition" has been broken down and now we worship the God of Israel together (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 2:13-14).

Concerning the acceptance of non-Jews into their congregations ("Messianic Gentiles"), Kesher Journal reports (emphasis mine):

Congregations are faced with internal division from having a membership that includes Jews, who take part in the destiny and specific promises to the Jewish people, and Gentiles, who do not. The official stance is that Gentiles and Jews are spiritually equal but distinct, and that Jews should be proud of being Jews, and Gentiles proud of being Gentiles. Nevertheless, the Jewish identity is clearly valorized, causing many Gentiles to strive for greater Jewishness through Jewish observance and search for Jewish roots. Since conversion for Gentiles is deemed unbiblical within the MJAA, these are the main options for Gentiles seeking a more Jewish identity. What helps increase a sense of unity between Jews and Gentiles within these rituals is the stress on the importance of being a "spiritual" Jew more than a "physical" Jew...

Messianic Jews within the MJAA will accept a Gentile into their congregations, but not allow conversion to Judaism; you will be a "Messianic Gentile." As Ellen Kavanaugh puts it concerning Christians who consider converting to Messianic Judaism,

Conversion implies a change in belief -- from one belief system to a different belief system. And therein lies the problem: To convert to Messianic Judaism would be to 'convert' to a community in which one was already [a] member; to convert to traditional Judaism would be to deny one's faith in Yeshua (or at least, deny the sufficiency of Yeshua alone).

The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations
The UMJC strives to be an authentic Jewish group, and be recognized as such by non-Messianic Judaism. They strive for "authentic Judaism."
They define Messianic Judaism as such:

Jewish life is life in a concrete, historical community. Thus, Messianic Jewish groups must be fully part of the Jewish people, sharing its history and its covenantal responsibility as a people chosen by God. At the same time, faith in Yeshua also has a crucial communal dimension. This faith unites the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church, which is the assembly of the faithful from the nations who are joined to Israel through the Messiah.  Together the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church constitute the ekklesia, the one Body of Messiah, a community of Jews and Gentiles who in their ongoing distinction and mutual blessing anticipate the shalom of the world to come.
For a Messianic Jewish group 1) to fulfill the covenantal responsibility incumbent upon all Jews, 2) to bear witness to Yeshua within the people of Israel, and 3) to serve as an authentic and effective representative of the Jewish people within the body of Messiah, it must place a priority on integration with  the wider Jewish world, while sustaining a vital corporate relationship with the Christian Church.
In the Messianic Jewish way of life, we seek to fulfill Israel's covenantal responsibility embodied in the Torah within a New Covenant context. Messianic Jewish halakhah is rooted in Scripture (Tanakh and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. It also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, as is common within Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakhah is and must be dynamic, involving the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances.
Messianic Judaism embraces the fullness of New Covenant realities available through Yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from Jewish experience and accessible to Jewish people.

To again quote Kesher Journal:

In a recent discussion at the 2002 Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (LCJE) Conference on Messianic Jewish Identity, a UMJC affiliated rabbi argued that Messianic Jews who do not keep kosher are in sin against God, denying their calling and identity... One of the implications of this stance is that observance of the traditions becomes a measure of spirituality and closeness with God, creating a spiritual hierarchy between those who are most observant relative to those who are less so. By keeping the law, Union congregations also hope to build bridges with observant parts of the Jewish community.

The UMJC, in contrast to the MJAA, requires "Messianic Gentiles" to observe the Jewish laws, and generally to convert fully -- becoming Messianic Jews.
From the Kesher Journal article once more:

In the past, Messianic congregations have generally defined themselves as a place where Jews and Gentiles worship together, witnessing to the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Many in the UMJC are seeing this as a defective definition. Congregations may have Gentiles, but they are not part of the definition of the congregation, which is to be a Jewish space. The congregation is not an adequate witness to the unity of Jews and Gentiles because the Gentiles there are called to live as Jews- the unity would only be demonstrated if Gentiles were to live as Gentiles.... The simple reality is that many Messianic Jewish leaders realize the kinds of congregations being built are unable to adequately express the Jewish life. They are not seen as authentically Jewish.
As with other issues, the UMJC's distinguishing mark is its concern for Jewish authenticity. One way to be more authentically Jewish is by adopting a conversion process, similar to other forms of Judaism.

Summary
In short, whether a Gentile can convert to Messianic Judaism depends in large part on the beliefs of the specific congregation to which he or she would like to join. In some congregations, you may be able to convert and become a Messianic Jew, while in others you will be accepted to the community, but as a "Messianic Gentile."


Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife on the birth of Jesus? And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7

Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have  been a teenager when Jesus was born to her.
Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?

Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?
The short answer is eemaha! That is right eemaha, which is Eskimo for maybe!
The Gospels are silent on this point and the Church has not pronounced on this subject matter.
The Apocryphal Gospel of St. James states that a midwife came to the assistance of Mary’s birth of Jesus, but she arrived too late and the Infant Jesus was already born. Although the Church does not recognize this book in her biblical canon, it is the very source she uses for the names of the parents of the Virgin Mary: Joachim and Anne!

Chapter 19
(1) And I saw a woman coming down from the mountain and she said to me, "Man,
where are you going?"
(2) And I said, "I am seeking a Hebrew midwife."
(3) Replying, she said to me, "Are you from Israel?"
(4) And I said to her, "Yes."
(5) Then, she said, "And who is giving birth in the cave?"
(6) And I said, "The one who has pledged to be married to me."
(7) And she said to me, "She is not your wife?"
(8) And I said to her, "She is Mary, the one who was raised in the temple. I won her by lot to be my wife. (9) She is not yet my wife, but has a fetus from the Holy Spirit."
(10) And the midwife said, "Really?"
(11) And Joseph said to her, "Come and see."
(12) So the midwife went with him. (13) And they stood near the cave and a dark cloud was hovering over the cave. (14) And the midwife said, "My soul glorifies this day, for today my eyes have seen a miracle: salvation has come to Israel."
(15) And immediately, the cloud withdrew from the cave and a great light appeared in the cave so that their eyes could not bear it. (16) And a little while later the same light withdrew until an infant appeared. And he came and took the breast of his mother, Mary.
(17) And the midwife cried out and said, "How great this day is for me, for I have seen this new miracle."
(18) And the midwife departed from the cave and met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin has given birth, although her body does not allow it."
(19) And Salome said, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth."

Blessed Catherine Emmerich revelations suggest that no midwife attended the actual birth of Jesus. Thus Mother and Child were alone and totally at peace with one another.

Birth of the Child Jesus
I saw Joseph on the following day arranging a seat and couch for Mary in the so-called Suckling Cave of Abraham, which was also the sepulcher of Maraha, his nurse. It was more spacious than the cave of the Crib. Mary remained there some hours, while Joseph was making the latter more habitable. He brought also from the city many different little vessels and some dried fruits. Mary told him that the  birth of the Child would arrive on the coming night. It was then nine months since her conception by the Holy Ghost. She begged him to do all in his power that they might receive as honorably as possible this Child promised by God, this Child supernaturally conceived; and she invited him to unite with her in prayer for those hard-hearted people who would afford Him no place of shelter. Joseph proposed to bring some pious women whom he knew in Bethlehem to her assistance; but Mary would not allow it, she declared that she had no need of anyone. It was five o'clock in the evening when Joseph brought Mary back again to the Crib Cave. He hung up several more lamps, and made a place under the shed before the door for the little she-ass, which came joyfully hurrying from the fields to meet them.
When Mary told Joseph that her time was drawing near and that he should now betake himself to prayer, he left her and turned toward his sleeping place to do her bidding. Before entering his little recess, he looked back once toward that part of the cave where Mary knelt upon her couch in prayer, her back to him, her face toward the east. He saw the cave filled with the light that streamed from Mary, for she was entirely enveloped as if by flames. It was as if he were, like Moses, looking into the burning bush. He sank prostrate to the ground in prayer, and looked not back again. The glory around Mary became brighter and brighter, the lamps that Joseph had lit were no longer to be seen. Mary knelt, her flowing white robe spread out before her. At the twelfth hour, her prayer became ecstatic, and I saw her raised so far above the ground that one could see it beneath her. Her hands were crossed upon her breast, and the light around her grew even more resplendent. I no longer saw the roof of the cave. Above Mary stretched a pathway of light up to Heaven, in which pathway it seemed as if one light came forth from another, as if one figure dissolved into another, and from these different spheres of light other heavenly figures issued. Mary continued in prayer, her eyes bent low upon the ground. At that moment she gave birth to the Infant Jesus. I saw Him like a tiny, shining Child, lying on the rug at her knees, and brighter far than all the other brilliancy. He seemed to grow before my eyes. But dazzled by the glittering and flashing of light, I know not whether I really saw that, or how I saw it. Even inanimate nature seemed stirred. The stones of the rocky floor and the walls of the cave were glimmering and sparkling, as if instinct with life.
Mary's ecstasy lasted some moments longer. Then I saw her spread a cover over the Child, but she did not yet take It up, nor even touch It. After a long time, I saw the Child stirring and heard It crying, and then only did Mary seem to recover full consciousness. She lifted the Child, along with the cover that she had thrown over It, to her breast and sat veiled, herself and Child quite enveloped. I think she was suckling It. I saw angels around her in human form prostrate on their faces. It may, perhaps, have been an hour after the birth when Mary called St. Joseph, who still lay prostrate in prayer. When he approached, he fell on his knees, his face to the ground, in a transport of joy, devotion, and humility. Mary again urged him to look upon the Sacred Gift from Heaven, and then did Joseph take the Child into his arms. And now the Blessed Virgin swathed the Child in red and over that in a white veil up as far as under the little arms, and the upper part of the body from the armpits to the head, she wrapped up in another piece of linen. She had only four swaddling cloths with her. She laid the Child in the Crib, which had been filled with rushes and fine moss over which was spread a cover that hung down at the sides. The Crib stood over the stone trough, and at this spot the ground stretched straight and level as far as the passage, where it made a broader flexure towards south. The floor of this part of the cave lay somewhat deeper than where the Child was born, and down to it steps had been formed in the earth. When Mary laid the Child in the Crib, both she and Joseph stood by It in tears, singing the praises of God.

Ultimately, as far as Catholics go, one can believe one way or another on this subject matter. As the Church has not pronounced definitely on this subject!


Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism? Catholicism teaches ministerial priesthood (source).

Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism?

I'm referring to the hierarchy as well as to those who perform the sacraments. As for the scope of Protestants, I am asking those who adhere to the 5 Solae.

There are a lot of protestant churches so it's hard to be exhaustive, but I think the Anglican Church is what you're looking for.

After splitting from Rome the Church of England went through a reformation that aligned much of their theology with the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions. You can find this in the 39 articles.

For example, this is very Protestant:

  WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings

But the church's structure is very hierarchical (episcopalian) with bishops, priests, deacons, etc...

There's also the issue of Apostolic Succession which has a complicated history in the Anglican church.

To belabor the point, the lack of distinction between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church is what led to the Puritans. In a similar vein the the Methodists broke off from the Church of England because Wesley ordained preachers and allowed them to administer the sacraments.


Why is it hard for a rich man to go to heaven? Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Why would this be?

Does this mean that it will be hard for e.g. Warren Buffett to go to heaven? Can a rich man go to heaven only by giving away all of his goods to the poor, as Jesus advised one young rich man? And could this be why Warren Buffett set up a charitable foundation?

  And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”  Mark 11:23-27 ESV

As already mentioned, it is entirely possible for a rich man to go to heaven. The problem is that a rich man can more easily trust in his own merits or wealth. There are many proverbs that talk about that, like Proverbs 11:28 (ESV):

  Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf.

When we trust in ourselves and don't rely on Jesus and his death and resurrection for our salvation, then we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell everything he was testing him to see whether his trust and security was in Jesus or in his riches (himself).


Has the distinction of the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ been established? I heard that in the main stream Christianity there is such an assertion: In the Holy Trinity The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, but not separated. I also heard this: the divine and the human natures in Jesus Christ are joined, not separated, and not intermixed.

What about the distinction of those two natures in Jesus Christ? Has it been asserted anywhere (in any counsel or any document) in main stream Christianity that the two natures in Christ (divine and human) are clearly distinct (just like the Three are distinct from each other in the Trinity)?

On the contrary, mainstream Christianity has held that the human and divine natures of Christ are not separable. A key point was the third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431 in order to resolve disagreements between Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius wanted to make a distinction between Christ the person, and the eternal Son: two distinct natures in one body.

Cyril's anathemata against Nestorius, which the
council accepted, express the view that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between the human and divine natures. It's worth unpacking a few of these:

  (2.) If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

This is an expounding of the hypostatic union idea, whereby the human and divine essences are joined, making Christ simultaneously fully human and fully divine.

  (3.) If anyone shall after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

The union is a "natural union", not an imposition of the divine over the human. This counters the Nestorian position that Jesus was merely the carrier for the Word (the human nature being subordinate).

  (4.) If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

So Cyril says that in talking about Christ, it's wrong to apply separate terminology or titles for the human and divine natures. Again, this counters the idea that some of Christ's actions can be attributed to Jesus the human (such as his eating, weeping, dying, etc.) and others to the Word (responsible for our salvation, all things were made through him, etc.).

Twenty years later, the Council of Chalcedon of 451 adopted a creed that expresses the relationship more briefly:

  We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The two natures are distinct insofar as they are not the same (humanity and divinity are different things), but they are united inseparably in Christ.


Does a comprehensive list for apostolic succession exist? I'm actively studying apostolic succession and am trying to make a website (with API) that would try to make a timeline. However, finding the links between two bishops/priests is very hard to do.

I've tried using Catholic Hierarchy but the results don't show whose consecrated who, and thus the link between them gets a bit iffy.

Of course, what I'm asking for might be something that I still don't yet understand entirely, but any help is appreciated. :)

I believe that Catholic Hierarchy is currently the best tool for showing apostolic succession.

Keep in mind that written records only exist going back to the Renaissance, and they get spottier as we go back in history.

However, looking at (for example) the page for Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, scrolling down past the “events” table and “micro-data summary,” we see that Cardinal Dolan was ordained a bishop by then-Archbishop Justin Rigali. Clicking on (now) Cardinal Rigali’s link, we see that he was ordained a bishop by Pope St. John Paul II, and so forth.

There is another complication to keep in mind with regard to apostolic succession: most episcopal ordinations are acually concelebrations. That is, a minimum of three bishops lay their hands on the ordinand, and all three pronounce the essential words of consecration. The apostolic succession, therefore, could just as legitimately be traced through the so-called co-consecrators (visible just under the “principal consecrator” field). Moreover, there are often more than three concelebrants, and these do not make it into the records.

(The custom of having multiple consecrators—however it arose—has the advantage of removing, for all intents and purposes, all possible doubt as to the validity of the episcopal ordination.)

If you keep clicking, you will note that the vast majority of Western bishops can trace their lineage to a certain Cardinal Scipione Rebiba. (This happened because Pope Benedict XIII, who traced his line to Cardinal Rebiba, consecrated no less than 139 bishops, for dioceses across Europe.) Unfortunately, we do not know who ordained Cardinal Rebiba a bishop (though there is no doubt that he was an auxiliary bishop in Chieti, Italy, and later archbishop of Pisa), so the written records largely stop there.


What is the biblical basis for those in heaven being able to pray for the living? Some Christian doctrine suggests that our work as Christ's servants does not end with our physical passing from this life; that we can continue to pray for those in need in heaven. Catholicism comes to mind but some Protestant denominations seem to leave wiggle room with their teaching on the communion of saints as well. I sense truth in this but could find no direct support in the bible. I do see support for this in the contested book of the Apocrypha and the practices of the Jewish Chasidic and Chareidi sects.

I am not asking if there is biblical authority to support the practice of the living praying to dead saints for intercession. That one has been thoroughly probed.  Rather, my question is if there is biblical authority to support the proposition that when we are in heaven, in the presence of God, we can pray for the living.

In searching this site, I found the following pertinent references. I would also ask for comment on how these references relate to the question posed.

Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! (Jer. 15:1)

And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you. (Tobit 12:12)

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Rev. 5:8)

You already mentioned that you had seen support for this in the Apocrypha (otherwise known as the Deuterocannonical text).  As such, it became a Tradition to ask the Saints for intercessory prayers, because of the belief that they can in fact pray for us.
And on top of that...

my question is if there is biblical authority to support the
proposition that when we are in heaven, in the presence of God, we can
pray for the living.

In Luke 16 we read of the exchange between two men who had passed away:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. [31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Luke 16:19–31)

This is used as evidence of the ability to be aware of things going on elsewhere, and to communicate with people elsewhere (which would include doing so with God through prayer), even after going to "the place where the departed saints go".


From the literal perspective, the truth whispered in the ear, are we literally to proclaim that truth from the roofs? What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. (Matt 10:27 NIV)

--> THIS IS THE QUESTION: From the literal perspective, the truth whispered in the ear, are we literally to proclaim that truth from the roofs considering other biblical perspectives including but not limited to the following verses?

For this literal perspective I find:
"So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known." (Matt 10:26 NIV), "... now something greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:42 NIV), "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases." (Proverbs 26:20 NIV).

Against this literal perspective I find:
"A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret." (Proverbs 11:13 NIV), and "A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid anyone who talks too much." (Proverbs 20:19 NIV), and "Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not." (1 Timothy 5:13 NIV).

Or is it not Gossip, because it fully known what is being said?

How Literal?

Is the "literal perspective" well defined? On the one hand, if everything is taken strictly literally, things just don't make sense. There are contradictions. At the other extreme, if nothing is meant to be taken literally, everything is ambiguous. If you assume that the message of the Bible is actually true and meant to be taken seriously, there has to be a position in the middle, and I don't know if that qualifies as the "literal perspective."

Perhaps a useful question to ask about how to read a passage is, "Does this make sense if it is understood literally?" or "To what extent is this meant to be taken literally?" If you look at the broader context of the passage, or the Bible as a whole, is there any conflict with a strictly literal interpretation? A literal interpretation is the default, but it is not always the correct way to understand what's written.

Your question about Jesus' command in Mt 10:27 is about how to reconcile this statement with other passages if it is to be taken literally. I will try to answer a similar question: How literally should we take Jesus' command in Mt 10:27?

But first,

Proverbs

Proverbs cannot reasonably be assumed to be a compendium of ubiquitously applicable, absolute assertions. It is a collection of wise sayings that, at least, are generally true, if not always true. Any given maxim may be always true, but it doesn't have to be just because it's included in the book. For example:

  Proverbs 26:5-6 (NASB)
  Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
  Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two things cannot both apply in all situations. A strictly literal interpretation of these two maxims (and the underlying assumption that Proverbs is full of statements that are always absolutely applicable) is nonsense.

Your use of Proverbs in harmony and disharmony with Jesus' command is not a Safe Way™ to use Proverbs. Without justifying that a given proverb is genuinely applicable and unilaterally binding on the situation that Jesus is addressing, it is exegetically risky to put those two statements together (or compare them for disharmony—something Biblical critics waste a lot of time doing).

Is it Reasonable?

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending the disciples out on a specific task, and is giving them advice (and commands). If we read the pieces of his commands strictly literally, he might be telling us never to keep secrets. But, does that make sense? No. The wisdom in the other verses you pointed out says as much. To read his words this way creates a contradiction. If we're proceeding from the assumption that the Bible is true and makes sense, we cannot accept this reading.

An Alternate Reading

This might be debatable, but when I read his words,
"What I tell you…" and then "what you hear whispered in your ear…," it sounds like they're both speaking of what Jesus will tell us (as if he is the one who will be whispering in the disciples' ears). The context of this passage has nothing to do with gossip or bad habits. It has nothing to do with secrets. It's about these disciples going out to proclaim the message to everyone. Earlier in Jesus' address, he says, "do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say." The context of the "whisper" points to Jesus/God/the Holy Spirit telling the disciples what they should say. They will hear it "whispered in [their] ear," and they are to "proclaim [it] upon the housetops."


According to Presbyterianism, is there salvation available for Adam and Eve? Generally, when I talk to people from other denominations about Adam and Eve, I get the impression that they're not highly liked people.

Do Presbyterians believe there's salvation available to Adam and Eve?

According to Presbyterianism, is there salvation available for Adam and Eve?

The short response is that it is probable that Adam and Eve were saved.

The Bible does not explicitly state whether Adam and Eve went to heaven.  While Adam and Eve later serve as examples of sinful failure in the rest of Scripture, (Adam in Job 31:33; Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22 and Eve in 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) we do know at least two instances later in the Genesis narrative where Eve exhibited faith in God.

Some allow the possibility in the affirmative.

The Westminster Confession of Faith admits that Adam was saved. See this article in The Presbyterian Review.

Some Presbyterians look on the persons of Adam and Eve as simply mythological persons, such as seen here. After all snakes do not converse with people!

The Irish Presbyterian Mind states the following:

  The Covenant of Works described Adam as head of the human race who gained God’s favour through perfect obedience. As a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the guilt and punishment for sin were imputed to humanity, who were unable to save themselves from their inherent rebellion against God. God in his grace then entered into a Covenant of Grace that was administered differently in the Old and New Testament.

Now follows the response to the question as it was originally worded prior to it being edited to include only a Presbyterian response.

In general the feelings towards Adam and Eve in other denominations are not at all negative.

The short answer is that both Adam and Eve are saved.

Both Adam and Eve are venerated in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Oriental Church and other denominations. Both worked out their salvation through prayer, faith and penance for their transgressions.

They are commemorated as saints in the Orthodox Church in mid December.

  In the Orthodox Church Adam and Eve are counted among the saints and commemorated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers, falling between December 11th and 17th. The Synaxarion entry for this Sunday reads:

    Commemoration of Adam and Eve, the first-formed.

Even some Protestant Reformed Church believe that Adan and Eve are saved.

  First, we can say that Eve was saved. God said to the serpent, who is Satan (Rev. 1 2:9), "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). The “woman" is Eve (cf. 3:1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, 16). Through the Fall, Adam and Eve allied themselves with Satan and joined him in his hatred against God. When God put enmity between Satan and the "woman," Eve, He was restoring the covenant friendship that He had with her before the Fall. Viewed in this light, the "coats of skins" (3:21), which the Lord made and with which He clothed her, speak of the garments of salvation, as the church has traditionally taught. It comes as no surprise that Eve confesses that the sons she later bares came to her from the hand of the Almighty (4:1, 25). Thus God's coming to find Eve (3:8ff.) speaks of His graciously coming to seek and to save that which was lost (cf. Luke 19:10). Clearly, Eve was saved.

  Second, nor only Eve but also Adam was saved. Eve is prominent in acknowledging that God gave her the birth of Cain and Seth (Gen. 4:1, 25), but are we to think that Adam played no role in naming his sons and thus in confessing Jehovah as the God who gives life? Similarly, God clothed not only Eve but also Adam in those "coats of skins" (3:21) that betoken salvation. Furthermore, God came not only to Eve but also to Adam to show them their sin and misery that He might deliver them (3:8ff.). - The Salvation of Adam and Eve

According to the Catholic Church, Adam and Eve are in heaven and considered saints; thus they are held in high regard.

How can any Christian blame Adam And Eve for anything that befalls human nature or human society. Would we have done better in their situation. I guess that would include the actual Coronavirus-19 situation.

If fact the Catholic Church has a great respect for our first parents.

During the Easter Vigil, the Catholic Church will chant (sing) the traditional Easter Proclamation hymn of the Exsultet.

The Exsultet expresses the Church's belief that this is the same night in which the ancient Jews were liberated from their bondage under the Egyptians, as well as honouring Adam (in an indirect manner).

  O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
  quod Christi morte delétum est!

  O felix culpa,
  quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

The English equivalent could be translated as such:

  O truly necessary sin of Adam,
  destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

  O happy fault
  that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

As I mentioned above, according to Catholicism, both Adam and Eve are saints. How could there be any negativity in all this?

  It is true that there are no feast days for Old Testament saints in the Church's universal calendar.

  In the beginning, only martyrs for Christ were honored on the anniversary of their deaths. Soon, feast days for our Blessed Mother began to be observed. This gradual process of development in no way implied we should not ask Old Testament saints to intercede for us.

  In fact, the Church does in various ways venerate and ask for the intercession of Old Testament saints.

  In 1600 a liturgical book, the Roman Martyrology, listed all the saints whom the Church had officially recognized up to that point. This listing includes large numbers of saints who do not appear in the Church's general calendar.

  The Roman Martyrology remembers, among others, the following Old Testament saints: the prophet Habakkuk (Jan. 15); Isaiah (July 6); Daniel and Elias/Elijah (July 20 and 21); the seven Maccabees and their mother (Aug. 17); Abraham (Oct. 9); and King David (Dec. 29).

  Meanwhile, in the litanies of the saints we invoke the prayers of "all holy patriarchs and prophets," who are of course Old Testament saints. - Old Testament Saints?

The feast of Adam and Eve is December 24!

  As we have said elsewhere, Adam and Eve are not called saints in ordinary reference, historical or scriptural. But they may be called saints on their feast day, which is the vigil of Christmas, because we know from sound Catholic tradition that they repented of their great sin, lived lives of holiness and are now in Heaven. Adam is the father of the human race. Eve, his wife, was formed from Adam’s body. All of us have descended from these two. Adam was created in a state of paradisal innocence, with no human frailties or weaknesses. Adam sinned by disobeying the command of God not to eat a forbidden fruit. The whole human race inherited original sin because of Adam. Adam personally repented. Adam lived for 930 years. By his sorrow, his contrition, his pleading and his love, Adam finally won God’s full forgiveness for himself. Adam died and went to the Limbo of the Just, which is called “hell” in the Apostles’ Creed. This was not the hell of the damned. It was the place where the Just had to wait for the coming of Christ.... Adam’s feast is the vigil of Christmas, which is also the feast of Eve, his wife, who is with him in Heaven. - Saint Adam and Saint Eve (First Age of the world)

Adam the Patriarch is one of the patron saints of gardeners and tailors.

Eve the Matriarchis one of the Patron saints of tailors also.

Adam and Eve's Feastday is Christmas Eve (December 24)

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Curer

Sancti Ada et Eva, orate pro nobis.

For those who desire to honour Adam and Eve in a small way, why not try the Adam and Eve Pudding someday! Make it a tradition if you want!


Was Adam blaming Eve? Genesis 3:12 says:

  The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me
  fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

I've heard several people interpret this verse as Adam blaming God and / or Eve ("whom you gave to be with me") for eating the forbidden fruit.

Are there contextual or grammatical clues in the passage that support this conclusion? I'm wondering if Adam was just being matter of fact or truly blaming Eve or God?

Update: I found this question on another StackExchange.

I think the biggest grammatical clue is the existence of the phrase itself.

  “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree" Gen 3v12

We also see Eve's words.

  And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Gen 3v13

I think claiming, "I ate" would have been telling enough however Adam makes it a point to qualify his statement with the additional words.  I believe the conversational language in this chapter tells more of the story and that Adam was downplaying the severity of his choice with the additional qualifiers.  By doing so it appears that he was blaming Eve.  The serpent tried to downplay the severity of the consequences for eating the fruit earlier in the chapter.


What was written on the two stone tablets of Moses? What I understand in Exodus 20-23 is that the words in these chapters are continuous words spoken by God. We know that Moses was given two stone tablets, and that the commands were written on them by God's own hand.

What exactly was written on the two stone tablets?

Exodus 20-23 is very long, and to write all that on two stone tablets would be difficult. It could be written with very small characters. Perhaps only the ten important points were written?

When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18, NIV)

According to C.F. Keil there were only 172 words—the Decalogue in Exodus 20:2–17—that were written on the stones "by the finger of God." This would have easily fit.

  Nothing is said about the dimensions of the tables: at the same time, we can hardly imagine them to have been as large as the inside of the ark; for stone slab 2 1/2 cubits long and 1 1/2 cubits broad, which must necessarily have been some inches in thickness to prevent their breaking in the hand, would have required the strength of Samson to enable Moses to carry them down the mountain "in his hand" (Ex. 32:15), or even "in his two hands" (Deut. 9:15, 17). But if we suppose them to have been smaller than this, say at the most a cubit and a half long and one cubit broad, there would have been plenty of room on the four sides for the 172 words contained in the decalogue, with its threats and promises (Ex. 20:2–17), without the writing being excessively small. (Commentary on the Old Testament, by C.F. KEIL and F. DELITZSCH, 1.463-464)


Where did the trinity concept come from? When I read the bible I see God and His Son as distinctly separate beings.  Son sits next to Father.  Son prays to Father.  Yada yada.
How can they be the same person?
And when I read the bible I clearly see the Spirit as being a power that God uses to effect His will here on earth.  Nowhere do I see any evidence that the Spirit is a separate entity.

So where in the bible is evidence that makes many people want to smoosh  them into a single entity?

Wikipedia cites many sources that might be of interest. Ignatius of Antioch ca A.D. 110 in "Ignatius's Letter to the Magnesians", Ch. XIII, wrote "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?"

This shows that some understanding of God as three-fold, though less developed, was present very early in the Church.

This site quotes many Bible verses that are often used to substantiate the idea of the Trinity:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-the-trinity/

One verse is 2 Corinthians 13-14:

  14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
  the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

And another Matthew 28:19:

  19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

The general approach that is followed is to use the "one God" verses that are prevalent throughout the Bible to stress the unity and other verses to show the distinctness of the persons of the Trinity. Each is shown to be worthy of worship, whereas humans and angels are not.

The Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible and is structured carefully along Trinitarian lines. Thus Job represents the suffering servant, and the prophecies and insights of Wisdom he receives are primarily about the ministry and events in the life of Jesus and enlighten the mind to truth, as Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Job 9 - Savior is divine (can walk on water) but also a man (the Daysman)
Job 13:15-16 - A savior who delivers us from evil
Job 14:13-17 - A healer who renews our health & obtains safety from God's wrath
Job 17:3; 33:22-26 - A liberator who pays the ransom to set us free
Job 17:13-16; 33:27-30; 38:17 - A guide who knows the road to Sheol and can free us from the grave
Job 19:23-27 - A redeemer who raises the dead to life
Job 21:31 - A judge who "denounces their conduct to their face" and "repays them for what they have done"
Job 23:10,13 - A refining fire who purifies us and makes us "pure gold"

The speaker who followed Job and his friends is Elihu, and he speaks for the Holy Spirit:

I thought, ‘Age should speak;
    advanced years should teach wisdom.’
8 But it is the spirit in a person,
    the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding. (Job 32:7-8)

Elihu even speaks about being new wine in a wineskin about to burst, an analogy that Jesus later used to refer to the effect of the Holy Spirit entering a person.

For I am full of words,
    and the spirit within me compels me;
19 inside I am like bottled-up wine,
    like new wineskins ready to burst.
20 I must speak and find relief;
    I must open my lips and reply. (Job 32:18-20)

Elihu spoke to Job's heart and soul, to comfort, lovingly correct, and encourage with the truth that God loves him.

He loads the clouds with moisture;
    he scatters his lightning through them.
12 At his direction they swirl around
    over the face of the whole earth
    to do whatever he commands them.
13 He brings the clouds to punish people,
    or to water his earth and show his love. (Job 37:11-13)

Then at the end, God speaks from the Whirlwind and speaks about the creation, His fatherly provision to all His creatures of their physical needs and the final judgment.

Mind, heart, physical needs - each person of ther Trinity plays a distinct role, but all cooperate to accomplish this.

To doubly emphasize the Trinity, each of Job's three friends is antagonistic, but their opposition is varied, and each aims his barbs at ideas of Job's related to a different member of the Trinity. For example, Job cries out for a savior who has the power of God (able to help) but also the compassion and tenderness to not terrify him (a "son of man"). In his final speech, Bildad explicitly mocks the idea that one can trust for help in a "son of man":

How then can man be in the right before God?
    How can he who is born of woman be pure?
5 Behold, even the moon is not bright,
    and the stars are not pure in his eyes;
6 how much less man, who is a maggot,
    and the son of man, who is a worm!” (Job 25:4-6)

I could go on and show the connection to the other two friends, but this should be enough. The distinctions between the members of the Trinity run all the way back to the first book in the Bible to be written, and pop up from then on to the end.


Why baptise or christen a child multiple times? I'm researching my family tree and I'm currently investigating ancestors who lived in England in the 18th and 19th centuries (1700-1899). Many of these people were born before birth registrations were mandatory, so I have to rely on church records. I'm finding a lot of children who were baptised or christened on one date, then had a second ceremony six to eighteen months later, sometimes in the same town, sometimes in a neighbouring town.

I don't fully trust the records to tell the difference between christening and baptism. I'm not a Christian myself, so I only have a vague idea of the difference between them. It's my understanding that a child would have to be christened before being baptised, but the records sometimes show this in the other order. The two girls in one family were christened 10 miles away from where the family lived, but all the boys and all the baptisms were done in the local town.

Why would you have multiple christening/baptism ceremonies for the same child? Why wait up to 18 months? Why would you have them done in different town churches (assuming the family hadn't moved)? Would gender have come into it?

Christening and Baptism are the same, and the Church of England doctrine is that it can be administered only once to any child.

The usual arrangement was for the baby and godparents to go to church. The godparents, speaking on behalf of the baby, renounced the devil, declared belief in the Christian creed and expressed the intention to obey God's will and commandments and walk in the same. Water was poured on the baby and the minister said " (baby's name) I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost".

Sometimes, especially if the baby was weak, the water was poured and the "I babptise thee" etc said at home. The baby was then, as stated in the rubric in the Private Baptism service in the Book of Common Prayer

  lawfully and sufficiently baptised and ought not to be baptised again. Yet nevertheless if the child do afterward live it is expedient that it be brought into the Church

and there are prayers for such an occasion and the godparents then speak on behalf of the child making the same declarations that would normally have been made at the baptism.

Records were not always well or consistently kept and it is possible that some records may show both the date of the private baptism and the date the child was subsequently received into the church (building). These would then appear as two separate entries in the register.

However it would not be usual for there to be any large gap.

There are however other reasons a child might be baptised more than once. As Ken Graham points out it is possible that a child might be christened in the Church of England but also by another denomination. It may be possible to see from the records you are examining whether this is the case, as they may be amalgamated. If so it is possible that the girls in a family were taken to their mother's denomination, in the place she grew up, as well as having been baptised in the parish church where they now lived. This would be irregular, and most other denominations would not knowingly re-do a baptism.

If the records you are examining are purely C of E, which is very likely the case, then social entitlement may be a factor. Many charities were limited to persons baptised within a particular parish. The Poor Law also required destitute persons to be maintained at the expense of the parish, usually where they were christened or had established some other connection. To be baptised in more than one parish was, of course, not something the Church would approve of, and the second one would be invalid if discovered. It is possible, for example, that there was some charitable provision for girls education in a particular parish.

Again however there would seem unlikely to be any gap of as long as 18 months since suspicions would be aroused as to why the child hadn't already been baptised.

I suspect however that the most likely cause of the duplicate baptisms in the records is that the records may include both originals and transcripts.

Every christening, marriage and burial was entered in the Parish Records. Every year the churchwardens were responsible for making transcripts. A transcript was a copy of every entry in the past year, and they had to be sent to the bishop, or to the archdeacon, or both, and in some cases to other authorities. The fact cited by OP that his data usually has the second event 6 to 18 months after the first is suggestive. The practice in the locality may have been to send a full years transcript within six months of the end of the year, or at least that is when the Archdeacon etc entered them in his own records.

It is possible that your data includes parish records and transcripts, with only the date of notification in the transcript. Not all parish records have survived and  so sometimes the transcript may be the only record.

Where the same date is given for a christening/baptism service in more than one church, it is likely that the service occured in a chapel of ease or district chapel. These are official Church of England churches, but which are not the main church of the parish. In such cases the event was recorded immediately in the log book of the church where it occurred and then as soon as convenient afterwards would also be entered in the parish records, maintained at the parish church. In this way the event would be recorded in two plavces (quite apart from subsequent transcription).  But there wouldonly have been one event. This was particularly common in the north where parishes tended to be larger.


Renouncing the devil during baptism In "On the Mysteries" (De Mysteriis) [English], Chapter 2, St. Ambrose wrote,

After this the Holy of holies was opened to you, you entered the sanctuary of regeneration; recall what you were asked, and remember what you answered. You renounced the devil and his works, the world with its luxury and pleasures. That utterance of yours is preserved not in the tombs of the dead, but in the book of the living.
Post haec reserata tibi sunt sancta sanctorum, ingressus es regenerationis sacrarium: repete quid interrogatus sis, recognosce quid responderis. Renuntiasti diabolo et operibus ejus, mundo et luxuriae ejus ac voluptatibus. Tenetur vox tua, non in tumulo mortuorum, sed in libro viventium.

In the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, does the individual explicitly "renounce the devil and his works" when he makes his confession of faith during baptism?

What was the formal statement made by the person being baptized?
If this statement is no longer made, when did the practice cease?

Renunciation of the Devil in the Baptismal Rite is believed to be of Apostolic origin. The first explicit record of the use of this formula comes from Tertullian, where he says:

  "When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels" - De corona, iii.

In the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, does the individual explicitly "renounce the devil and his works" when he makes his confession of faith during baptism?

Yes.

What was the formal statement made by the person being baptized?

It is done in one of the following manner during the baptismal rite of an Infant: (src: Rite for the Baptism of One Child)

  The celebrant questions the parents and godparents:

  A.

  Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: And all his works?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: And all his empty promises?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Or B.

  Celebrant: Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God′s
  children?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: Do you reject the glamor of evil, and refuse to be mastered
  by sin?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

During adult baptism, same question is asked directly to the person (src: Rite for baptism of adults). Note that during an infant baptism, the Parents and Godparents reply 'I do'. They are responding in the place of the Child. This rite is repeated on every Easter vigil too.

If this statement is no longer made, when did the practice cease?

As far as I know, this practice has not ceased.


Were the early Christians known by any other name? We see in Acts 11:24-26 (NRSVCE):

"For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were brought to the Lord.  Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul,  and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called “Christians.”

I wish to know how the name Christians used for followers of Jesus stuck . Antioch was a part of ancient Greece, and the word Christian had its origin in Greek word Christos meaning the Saviour,  known as Messiah in Hebrew. That St. Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles in Greek, may also have contributed to the firming up  of the  name Christian. But then, we see Jesus being addressed as The Nazarene all through the Gospels and the Acts. It is therefore, strange that His disciples were not called Nazarenes by the Jews who were more comfortable with Hebrew language than  with Greek.

My question therefore is: Were the early Christians called  by some other name in languages other than Greek? If they were, why did those names become defunct?

PS: In southern India, Christians in the good old days called themselves as Nasrani, a name derived from the Syrian word for Nazarene.

Were early Christians known by other names than Christians?

Take your pick, those who followed Jesus were called Christians, Sect of the Nazarenes, Followers of the Way and Sheep.

  The early Christians were called by different names.

  Christians--"and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch," (Acts 11:26).

  Sect of the Nazarenes--“For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," (Acts 24:5).

  Followers of the Way--"and [Saul who became Paul] asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem," (Acts 9:2).

  Sheep--“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand," (John 10:27-28).

They were also called saints:

  Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. - Acts 26:10


Was the tabernacle ceiling straight or pointed? Which image describes the Tabernacle ceiling or roof as mentioned in the Book of Exodus, and what verse explains that?  Was it straight or pointed?

1:

Or 2:

Or 3 (straight from inside, with a covering pyramid like layer around it?):

According to the details in Exodus 26:15-30, it seems like the overall structure of the Tabernacle of Moses was covered with a flat roof.  Whether there was an inner curtain that formed a pointed ceiling underneath the flat roof (because a ceiling is found below a roof), I could not say.

Both the NIV and ESV Study Bible diagrams show the Tabernacle Tent (which housed both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) with a flat roof.  The NIV and the NLT confirm that the upright frames were locked together with horizontal crossbars to form a three-sided rectangle with an open end.

  26 “Make crossbars of acacia wood to link the frames, five crossbars for the north side of the Tabernacle 27 and five for the south side. Also make five crossbars for the rear of the Tabernacle, which will face west. 28 The middle crossbar, attached halfway up the frames, will run all the way from one end of the Tabernacle to the other. 29 Overlay the frames with gold, and make gold rings to hold the crossbars. Overlay the crossbars with gold as well.  30 “Set up this Tabernacle according to the pattern you were shown on the mountain.”  (see also Exodus 25:9, 40; 27:8)

I’m going with your first image.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that man is no longer made in God's image? According to an Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast man is no longer born in God's image due to the Fall. What is the biblical support for this assertion?

The broadcasts are archived here; the one I heard was the Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast today, 8:30 AM (from the Truth Network's flagship station at 11 am EST).  This radio show is Love Worth Finding and has been aired for many years.

In this particular broadcast (I provided a link in my comment - fast forward to around 9:10), Pastor Rogers claims that although Adam was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26), Scripture later states - in Genesis 5:3 - that Adam begat a son [Seth] in his own likeness, after his image (KJV).  Rogers interprets this to mean that all descendants of Adam were therefore made in Adam's image and likeness, which he says was the "marred and defaced" image of God.

In a very narrow sense, Rogers assertion seems more in alignment with eastern Christian thought than western.  The eastern Church understands that one of the consequences of the fall was spiritual damage to man that impaired his ability to cooperate with God's grace.  The western view, somewhat tersely, is more along the line of God's removing His grace from man.  (As an aside, Orthodox soteriology deals with the healing of man, whereas I think it could be said that western Christian soteriology largely deals with the restoration of God's grace).

It is a subtle theological point, but the eastern Fathers probably would have argued that it was not God's image in man, but rather His likeness that was "marred and defaced".  No Orthodox Christian (I think) would dare to say that a consequence of the fall was that man was no longer made in God's image.

There is also a somewhat pedantic point in that Genesis 5:3 refers to Seth, but does not say anything about Cain or Abel.


What do the paragraph markings in the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation mean? What do the paragraph markings on the Jubilee Bible 2000 mean? Take a look at the 1st, 5th, 8th verses in 1 Peter 5 (among other examples):

Image via Bible Gateway.

Reading the translator's notes, I see that it was translated from an English version by William Tyndale and a Spanish version by Casiodoro. Maybe these signify something related to these two texts? Maybe when the paragraphs started in one of these texts?

I was not able to find anything specifically related to the paragraph markings in any of the articles in the front and back of the Bible.

Short answer: these paragraph markings are editorial decisions made by the translator, and don't appear in the translations he mentions as his primary sources.

Paragraph markings are a relatively recent phenomenon – most older translations simply presented the text verse-by-verse, including the KJV and Reina Valera Antigua.  At the time, such a presentation was innovative – the system used today to mark New Testament verses was only introduced in 1551. Now, of course, verse divisions are ubiquitous, and in order to improve the flow of the text for modern readers, translators have divided the text by paragraphs as well.  Like the verse divisions, they are also editorial, but there is less agreement over paragraph divisions.

Thus, most modern translations of the Bible are presented with running text, in which the text is divided into paragraphs, such that each verse does not start its own line.  For example, see the same passage in the ESV: verses 1–5 are all one paragraph, and it's only a coincidence when a verse starts on a new line within that paragraph.

But that's not how the translator of the Jubilee Bible broke down the text – he preserved the verse-by-verse layout, but marked new paragraphs with the paragraph symbol.  Sadly, he seems to have not explained why, but considering his emphasis on preserving some elements of older translations like the KJV, it seems likely that he wanted to both (1) preserve the verse-by-verse rendering of older translations but (2) indicate the organization of the text to modern readers who expect paragraphs.

Incidentally, this type of formatting is often used in bilingual Bibles, where the verse-by-verse breakdown is particularly useful.  For example, here's how it looks in an RVR1960/ESV parallel Bible:


Why isn't the Book of 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch considered canon for the LDS Church? Recently, I have been reading apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, and like many before me, I am struck by the extremely specific similarities between 1 Enoch and the LDS's Book of Moses. I flipped to the back of the LDS's Bible Dictionary, and noticed that the LDS Church also agrees that there are many truths in 1 Enoch. I also found a fascinating article by LDS scholar Hugh Nibley pertaining to 1 Enoch.
I understand from this Q&A why other Christians do not canonize 1 Enoch.
I also understand why non-LDS folk would not find the parallels and similarities (in comparison to the Book of Moses) genuine enough for the Books of Enoch to be canonized by the LDS Church, as detailed in length in this Q&A
However, I do not understand why the LDS Church does not choose to canonize this text if they consider it be an inspired work with many truths similar to their own. What are the key aspects that make LDS authorities skeptical of fully embracing 1 Enoch as part of the sacred writ? After all, they have Songs of Solomon in their canon... 1 Enoch seems a lot more relevant and aligned with their doctrine.

According to Doctrine and Covenants Section 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

This is referencing Joseph Smith's work in "translating" the bible. The work that lead to the Book of Moses and the JST version of the bible.
The takeaway here is that in the view of the LDS church, there is some truth in the Apocryphal texts, there is also some falsehood. Therefor it is easier to stick with the texts generally accepted as good by most followers of the Christian tradition.


What is the biblical basis for the position that embryonic stem cell research is immoral/sinful? Many churches teach that embryonic stem cell research is strictly wrong, while adult stem cell research is alright.  What is the biblical basis for this teaching and why are the two distinguished?

This article gives a pretty good summary of the foundations, though I'm not going to endorse the argument it makes.

"Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos," the New York Times explained in a May 6 article reporting on the shifting politics of stem-cell research.
It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope.

Those Christians who believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that a cell cluster five days past conception is the equivalent of a human being, equate the use of embryonic stem cells with murder. Use of adult stem cells does not kill the donor.
There are other questions that address the biblical foundation for "life begins at conception".


Did Jesus work for a living? At Acts 20:34-35 (NRSVCE) we hear St Paul saying :

  You know for yourselves that I worked with my own hands to support myself and my companions.   In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

That implies that Jesus Himself worked for a living , like some of his disciples who fished during the  night (Luke 5:5). My question is : Does the Catholic Church substantiate that Jesus worked to earn a living for Himself  and for  Mother Mary during and  before His public life ? What was the work He specialized in ?

In the Vulgata, Mark 6:3 reads:

  Nonne hic est faber, filius Mariæ, frater Jacobi, et Joseph, et Judæ, et Simonis? nonne et sorores ejus hic nobiscum sunt? Et scandalizabantur in illo.

The first verse is usually translated as:

  Isn't this the carpenter?

Similarly, in Mark 13:55 we read:

  Nonne hic est fabri filius? nonne mater ejus dicitur Maria, et fratres ejus, Jacobus, et Joseph, et Simon, et Judas?

The first phrase is commonly translated as:

  Isn't this the carpenter's son?

In effect, the Catholic tradition interprets the profession of Jesus' putative father, Joseph, as carpenter. As the respective entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia states;

  St. Joseph, indeed, was a tekton, as we learn from Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3. The word means both mechanic in general and carpenter in particular; St. Justin vouches for the latter sense (Dialogue with Trypho 88), and tradition has accepted this interpretation, which is followed in the English Bible.

There is also reference to Joseph's profession is several apocrypha. For instance, the "Story of Joseph the Carpenter" states:

  He was, besides, skilful in his trade, which was that of a carpenter

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in numeral 2427, when referring to the dignity of work, states:

  Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat." Work honors the Creator's gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work.

Finally, Pope Francis, in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia states:

  We then need to peer
  into those thirty long years when Jesus earned his
  keep by the work of  his hands

To conclude, the Catholic Church believes Jesus did work for a living during part of his private life, probably as a carpenter. It might not be unreasonable to assume Jesus learnt this trade from Joseph.


What process will be followed for the Anglican Covenant after its rejection by the Church of England? The Anglican Covenant is a document long in the making; it is a proposed formal statement of how the member churches of the Anglican Communion should relate to one another. It is particularly motivated by disagreements among those churches about such topics as homosexuality, and the threat of schism. The current text is available for ratification by each of the provinces.

The Church of England decided that a majority of its dioceses would have to vote in favour of the Covenant (that is, the bishops, clergy, and laity of each diocesan synod) in order for the Church to adopt it. On Saturday 24 March 2012, the diocesan synods of Guildford, Lincoln, and Oxford voted "no", making it impossible for there to be an overall "yes" majority.

What process will be followed for the Covenant now?

Is this rejection enough to halt the ratification in other provinces, or could others continue to decide?
Is it final with respect to the Church of England, or could they change their minds?
Does it mean that we will see another draft - or does it end the overall process?
From the voting results, it seems that the bishops are more pro-Covenant than the clergy or laity are: does this have any bearing on the possible future of the Covenant?

I also asked: What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant? That question is about the content of the Covenant, and this one is more about the process and consequences.

I believe that it will be final. Until the heads of diocese who voted in the negative die, or leave their leadership positions, as well as a compelling case being made for it, the Church of England simply has no reason to join. It gives other churches power within the Anglican Church that there's no reason to relinquish. As I see it, the accord will simply continue on without them. They already have enough churches to make this document significant, and there's no guarantee that if they change it that the Church of England would accept and ratify it. Better to stick with what they have and accomplish what they can without the Church of England, than to change it in a way that may alienate other churches.

Summary I believe it will pass without the ratification of the Church of England, at least for a long time. It provides what many churches are seeking, with regard to conflict resolution, and providing more overall unity.


Does the Bible say for sure that Daniel was a eunuch? Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
  (Dan 1:9, KJV)

The prince of the eunuchs is the guy Daniel asks for permission to eat the pulse and water instead of the king's meat. This seems to indicate that Daniel was a eunuch, because the prince of the eunuchs was the person that he asks. This is an important question because how we translate it gives credibility to how hard it would be if not impossible to be as great and for God as Daniel was.

Think about it. Guys are distracted by lots of things that wouldn't be as distracting, if distracting at all, if one was a eunuch. If Daniel was indeed a eunuch then in a sense he would have had a head start at being a man of God.

While the Bible does not say it, it can certainly be implied. It would be strange for him to not be. Unfortunately, since the Bible is silent about it, then that is about as close as we can get to it. But, I say definitely yes, he was a eunuch.


What are the differences in belief regarding Hesychasm between the Chalcedonian (Eastern) and Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) Orthodox Churches? I got into a discussion recently regarding the differences (or lack thereof) between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  I'm aware that the Oriental Churches are Miaphysites, while the Eastern Churches are Dyophysites.

My question is, has the above difference in Christology resulted in a difference in the understanding of the level of union with God a Christian can experience in this life?

A claim was made during the discussion I was in that the Oriental Orthodox Churches deny the it is possible for a person to enter into hesychastic prayer with God in which the mind, body, and soul are engaged in perfect, united prayer to God.  The Eastern Orthodox defend hesychasm as a central Tradition.

Is this claim actually true of the Oriental Churches?

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, many of the differences between the two Churches results in the language and definitions of some key orthodox concepts. In fact, much of the Christology of both Churches is the same.

  Hesychasm may be experienced by ascetic individuals, usually highly
  spiritual monks and nuns. Little is known about such matters as these
  spiritual individuals will not reveal this information voluntarily to
  anyone except their confession fathers, and their confession fathers
  will rarely expose this information until their timely repose.

Source

This source is from the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States and is answered by His Grace Bishop Youssef, the presiding bishop of said diocese


What did C. S. Lewis base his idea of sehnsucht/joy on? C. S. Lewis' idea of sehnsucht is that we sense that there is some ineffable object to our desires and that this proves that there is something beyond this world and life (for it makes the enjoyment of those goods pale in comparison). He used this idea, in one instance, as proof of God.

What evidence, whether from the Bible or philosophy or his own experience, did he base this idea on?

At least a couple pericopae come to my mind, if not to Clive Staples Lewis.

In the context of Paul's contrast between the finite and prideful wisdom of man versus the infinite and hidden-from-the-wise wisdom of God, Paul said,

". . . but we speak . . . the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,
 'THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT

 SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT

 HEARD,

 AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED

 THE HEART OF MAN,

 ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED

 FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM'" (1 Corinthians 2:6-9, excerpts, NASB Updated)

Most Christians, I suspect, realize that life is a mixed bag. It has its highs and lows and lots of in-betweens. The joys of earth are mingled with sadness, trials, suffering, temptation, persecution and more. As Christians get closer to the end of their lives here on earth, they are perhaps more likely to admit that the things of earth, including happiness and pleasure, begin to pale in comparison to godly joy and true pleasure, which as the psalmist reminds us, begin now and continue forever.

"Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (16:11 NKJV).

Also consider the refrain from Helen H. Lemmel's hymn "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus":

"Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace" (refrain from "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," by Helen H. Lemmel)

The pleasures of sin are but for a season, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us (11:25), and those pleasures, though genuinely pleasurable, eventually become alloyed with unexpected consequences, in part because of the spiritual law of reaping and sowing (Galatians 6:7 ff.)

One of the descriptions of heaven in the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. . . . and [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away" 21:1-4, excerpts, NASB Updated).

Knowing that some radical changes are coming, all of which are both good and unalloyed, causes some Christians' hearts to rejoice in hope (see Romans 5:2 KJV).

Even what I call spiritual "mountain-top experiences" fade, sometimes quickly and sometimes more slowly, but they do fade when we leave the mountaintop (as Peter, James, and John did after Jesus' transfiguration--see John 17:1 ff.) and once again face the challenges which come our way, sometimes successfully and sometimes no so successfully (see John 17:9, 17-23).

And last,

The Christian's hope-filled expectation of being rewarded by our Lord God for his or her God-glorifying good deeds. Jesus promised that the treasures we lay up in heaven are subject neither to devaluation and depreciation, nor can they be stolen. As the saying goes, "God is no man's debtor." One day, faithful Christians will be rewarded handsomely for their obedience to God and for their God-glorifying labors:

"[B]ut let us not lose heart in doing good; for in due time, if we do not faint, we shall reap" (Galatians 6:9 DBY).


How can I find and read Alpha News? The originators of the Alpha Course published a newsletter called Alpha News, which I have seen cited a few times.

Is there a way to track down back copies of Alpha News?

I've found several options.  First, a few issues from the various editions are available online at issuu.com; for example:

Jan–Mar 2010
July 2010
November 2010

Individual issues of the periodical can sometimes be found for purchase on online auction sites, such as ebay.com.

And finally, some libraries carry the periodical.  WorldCat.org can be helpful in this regard, though not all libraries with the periodical are listed in the same entry.  This entry lists the National Library of Scotland and the University of Oxford, while this one lists the University of Cambridge.


Why is Jesus looking on an oddly standing stone? I am not a Christian, so please excuse my Philistinism if I'm missing the obvious, but ever since I saw this painting on my Grandma's wall I've been intrigued by it. Particularly the standing stone in the foreground and by the odd little stare Jesus seems to give it.
Question: Does anyone know if there's any deeper (Biblical) meaning to it?

"Christ in the Desert", Ivan Kramskoy, 1872

From the title of the picture, I feel it is safe to assume the author had this in mind:

Matthew 4:1-4

  1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be
  tempted of the devil.

  2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was
  afterward an hungred.

  3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of
  God, command that these stones be made bread.

  4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
  bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
  God.

The stone is so oddly standing in order to stick out. Otherwise it wouldn't be Jesus staring at a stone, it would be Jesus staring.