Where do primary sources for the Bible reside? Bible translations are made from sources.  Where are these sources?  In a university, museum, government agency or what?

The short answer to the question is: in museums and libraries throughout the world.

The sheer number of fragments alone means that no one academic entity - let alone even one government or ecclesiastical authority - can "own" them all.

There are over 5500 manuscripts, miniscules, unicals, papyri, parchments, and fragments that critical scholars have used to ascertain the authentcity of the Scriptures as we have them today. A corpus like the Nestle-Aland 28 brings together some of the best consensus from the history of the manuscripts to most definitively decide what the "original" text most likely said - and the use of an appartus will illustrate the various manuscripts that were used to make the determination.

For more about apparatuses and manuscript evidence, you should check out other questions already here.

With over 5500 manuscripts, then, a complete list is too broad.  That said, there are a few key manuscripts that scholars would go to right away:

Dead Sea Scrolls, at the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.  Side note: I've been there, and it is just way cool.  The museum itself looks like one of the jars in which the scrolls were found, and it showcases the Great Scroll of Isaiah.  The actual scrolls themselves can be viewed online.
Codex Vaticanus, at the Vatican Library in Rome.  Did you really thing the Vatican wouldn't have one of the best manuscripts in its own library?  This too, is online, but trust me, it is worth the visit.
Codex Sinaticus, at the British Museum and three other museums: the British Library, the Library of the University of Leipzig, the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg, and the Holy Monastery of the God-Trodden Mount Sinai (Saint Catherine’s). These were distributed for "safekeeping", after being "rescued" (sounds so much better than "stolen", eh?) from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai, by Tischendorf, back in 1859. It is available online for viewing.  Sadly, while I have been to the British Museum, I didn't see this!  (Too busy looking at the Rosetta Stone, and the Cyrus Cylinder which may be the oldest extra biblical verification of a bible text, dating from the 500s BC.)

Interestingly, the oldest known fragment of the New Testament - p52, John Ryland's fragment of a verse in John - is located in library at the University of Manchester, England. There are online pictures too...


How do trinitarians interpret John 8:58? In John 8:58 Yeshua says:

  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

If I'm not misunderstanding, and based on commentaries I've read, trinitarians believe this quote is god the son claiming to have existed from all eternity, even before Abraham.

Since the divine nature and human nature of god the son cannot be separated or divided, how did the human nature of god the son exist before Abraham?

Trinitarians do not teach that God the Son existed eternally in two natures, but that in the incarnation the divine nature assumed a human nature, and that these two cannot now be separated. This is clear in the Chalcedonian Definition, which distinguishes between the Godhead ("before the ages") and the Manhood ("the last days"):

  before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood

That the Son of God assumed (and did not have from eternity past) human nature is also clear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh", The Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. (§461)

Similar points are made in Protestant catechisms, like the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q22.

Turning now to treatments of John 8:58 in particular, we see Methodist Adam Clarke approvingly quoting Calmet (a Catholic), saying:

  The following is a literal translation of Calmet's note on this passage: "I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Savior. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world." (source)

Similarly, Albert Barnes (Reformed) explains how John 8:58 should be understood to teach that only Christ's divine nature pre-existed the incarnation:

  The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John (John 1:1), that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. (source)


According to the Catholic Church, when Peter briefly walked on water, was it a miracle attributed to him? According to Catholic Church was Peter being able to at least for a few steps walk on water attributed to him as his first miracle?  Or is it understood that it was Jesus using the power given him by the Father that made Peter able to take those steps and  this was a miracle performed especially for Peter by the Lord?

The scriptures do list many healing miracles and so forth by Peter later in his ministry but is there any church opinion on his walk on water being one of his miracles?

According to the Catholic Church, no saint ever performs a miracle him- or herself.  All miracles ever, past, present, and future, are performed by God, as the Master of His creation.  In Catholic theology, saints are powerful intercessors before the throne of God conveying our prayers and supplications to Him, much like Abraham pleaded for God to spare Sodom from (deserved) destruction.

And what about those people who seem to perform miracles while alive --- and hence, by definition, not yet considered saints proper?  Catholic theology would say that even in this case God is really performing the miracle (through a special indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the intermediary person), and that for some reason --- the growth of the Church, the shining of God's Glory, a sign of God's favor towards a particular teaching preached by the intermediary, the display of faith by one of His followers --- God has chosen to act through said person.

It is surprising that the Author of the universe should choose to act through mere humans --- or mere matter, for that matter.  But this is the way God has revealed Himself to be and to act in the Bible.

As to your question.  First of all, I should mention that I don't believe that the Catholic Church has decidedly taught whether his walking on water can be a miracle attributed to Peter specifically or not.  Therefore the question is one which allows speculation and argument, with evidence proposed on all sides.

My own personal interpretation of the passage in Matthew 14 --- which interpretation I think I can defend --- is that Jesus Christ chose to reward the faith that Peter displayed on Jesus's powers when he said that Jesus could make him walk on water; the way Jesus rewarded this faith was by actually allowing Peter to walk on water --- and thus showed Peter and the other Apostles that Jesus was indeed a being whom the natural world obeyed (i.e. God).

So, the miracle of Peter walking on water gets firmly attributed to Jesus first and foremost.  But how much of it can be attributed to Peter's intersession?  It is, after all, Peter who asked for the miracle from God.  Had Peter not asked, would Jesus have granted it?  Insofar as the asking was what provided he opportunity for Jesus to act, I suppose you could say that it would not have happened without his intercession.

And yet, I do not get a sense from this passage that it was specifically the fact that it was Peter that asked that made Jesus respond with the miracle.  The rest of the Gospels are full of occasions where petitioners (many of whom are not Peter) asking Jesus for miracles with great faith on His power to grant them.  If one of these people had shown the faith that Peter showed when he asked for the miracle, I get the impression that Jesus would also have granted the miracle --- to reward the faith implicit in the request.  In fact, when Peter's faith in Jesus' word to 'come' fails him, he starts to sink.  Thus, the miracle seems to be strongly linked to the faith of Peter's belief that Jesus can deliver, more so than to his personal request, or any particular gift imparted to him by the Holy Spirit.  Given these considerations, I am more inclined to give the credit of the miracle to Jesus than to the request by (specifically) Peter.

This does not deny that Peter walking on water was a powerful work. But I think this one should be attributed to Jesus instead of Peter. After all, the healing of the woman with the flow of blood in Luke 8 is not a miracle attributed to her, but to Jesus alone! On the other hand, the healing of the lame man on Acts 3:6 would definitely be a miracle attributed to Peter. What is the difference? There seems to be a greater amount of agency by Peter in Acts 3 than in Matthew 14.  In Acts 3 Peter attempts to heal the lame man himself, using the power of God (which power God does give in this instance).  In Matthew 14 it is Jesus who acts to bring about the miraculous, not Peter.


Why does the Bible say that people no longer need to ‘feel guilty’ under the gospel, as compared to the Old Testament? There is the verse from Hebrews that makes me pose the question:

  10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-3)

Apparently under the Old Covenant they always felt guilty otherwise the sacrifices would have ceased. Why the difference in these covenants from this perspective?

Note: I am providing an exhaustive answer as it is difficult to find this subject being answered to any degree of depth anywhere.

I think the answer can only be found by contrasting how these two covenants differ.  These covenants largely differed: in their time in history, location, atmosphere, persons who inaugurated them, the persons who acted as mediator in them, subject matter, priests officiating under them, method of their dedication, success, permanency of their effects, aims, level of light in them, and the mode of governance that they established.

So the implicit question is, “How are they different in reality and how does that then specifically explain the difference in ‘feeling guilty’?"

Introduction:

The following comparisons show the difference between the Law and the Gospel, but it is not indented to imply there was no gospel in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not just have the Laws given under Moses, it also had the Promise given to Eve (Genesis 3:15), renewed to Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), then made more clear to Abraham (Gen. 17), through David (Sam. 7:12-16), and continuing, running parallel to the Law but not joined in it by faith in the promise (Galatians 3:12), as the Law, as a covenant of works, pointed away from itself to the Promise. (Galatians 3:24)

Also the Prophets, under the Law, defended and applied the Law, while also directly pointed to the Messiah as that person who would fulfill all its demands for ever. (Acts 3:24) This is why Moses and Elijah both met Christ on the mountain during his transfiguration, whereby it was understood by them all that He would descend from that hill to the cross from which all the law and the prophets testified. (Luke 9:18-36) Moses was the representative of the Law, while Elijah was the representative of the Prophets as its most zealous defender.

In fact, the same contrasted comparison between Law and Gospel could be made with the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, versus the Law given to Moses. If we lived before Christ, we could have written such an article. However, as the Promise in the Old Testament was pointing forward to the times of the Gospel, the comparison between Gospel and Law is more properly done with the perspective of the New Covenant being already established. There is much less benefit of making the comparison between the Law and the mere prefiguring shadows of the gospel.

Although the gospel is in the Old Testament, running parallel to the Law, and directed sinners away from itself by commanded full obedience (Leviticus 18:5, James 2:10, Mathew 19:21) it is a different subject not under the focus of the task at hand. We only desire that it should be clear from the outset that the kernel of the gospel was always in the Old Testament as the Covenant of Promise as distinct from the Law.

It is through the Covenant of Promise that men could always be saved even before the Law was introduced (Galatians 3:17). Yet it must also be recognized that even those who were saved by faith, apart from the works of the Law, while being made subject to the Laws of Moses at that time, could not have fully enjoyed the ‘liberty of the gospel’ as will be shown under this comparison.  If they could have, there would have been no reason to change anything. (Hebrews 8:7) We would have kept the daily sacrifice for sins ‘looking back at Christ’ who they prefigured, just as an ancient man, full of faith, may have presented his beast ‘looking forward’ to the Messiah. The truth is that many under the Old Covenant were not circumcised of heart, but flesh only. It was to this sort of person that the Law was principally made for and who it principally speaks to (Hebrews 10:1-3):

  We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (1 Timothy 1:9)

Under the same token we must add that although the Law was removed in Christ, as to its outward form and power over the conscience, its ruling jurisdiction has always existed since the fall, for it merely took the law of conscience that condemns sinners by nature and expounded on it under commands. (Romans 1:18-21) Therefore, the Law has always been in place since the fall and will always be in place as long as sinners remain. We are all born in sin, under law, even if Moses had not manifested what those Laws were, and all who believe in Messiah, since the fall of man to the return of Christ, are freed from that Law inwardly and are transplanted into grace by the gospel. (Colossians 1:13, Romans 4:1-3)

Those saints of Old who had to suffer under the legal, ceremonial and civic Laws of Moses, being somewhat contrary to their inward liberty and circumcision of heart, did so as a theatrical service for those who had not yet believed. As Christ had not yet come, the Law assumes all have not yet believed until He came. For although both sinner and saint were circumcised as a child of Moses, the law had to assume they were one, or the other. It is clear that it assume a state before Christ was raised. In a similar but less strict manner, even in the New Covenant believers assume the salvation of those who claim faith and allow them to take part in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even a Devil we be assumed a saint under the gospel, if faith in Christ is claimed without any scandalous sins to question the claim. This explains why a Jew under the Old Covenant would die if attempting to draw near to God in the Holy of Holies. It was assume that that Messiah had not yet come to tear that curtain from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51, Leviticus 16:2).

How the Covenants Differ in Terms of the Spirit of Guilt:

1-They differ in time:

The Old Covenant refers to the covenant inaugurated during the time of Moses. It was a covenant of Law that many have defined under the categories: moral, civil and ceremonial. When the words ‘The Law’ are used in scripture it most commonly refers the first five books of the Bible with respect to the Laws of Moses. The 'moral law' is generally tied to the Ten Commandments, the 'civil law' to various capital punishments and rules related to the 'eye for an eye' precept of justice. The 'ceremonial law' has to do with the Levitical Priesthood and the entire God ordained rules of worship that were conducted in God's Temple.

The New Covenant was delivered in the “in the latter days,” (Hebrews 1:1-2) and “in the dispensation of the fullness of times.” (Ephesians 1:10) and it formally made the Old Covenant obsolete during the actual death of Christ when the inner certain of the Temple was torn from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51).

2-They differ in the location that they were inaugurated:

The first was declared on Mount Sinai. This mountain is Arabia was the home of Ishmael and his race. The Arabian name for Mount Sinai was Hagar. The New Testament was declared on mount Zion, and the law of it went forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3).

The Apostle Paul takes special notice of this difference of location, because ‘Hagar’ was also the name of the slave who gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham's first lawful child. Hagar's child was a child of Abraham by law, but Isaac was the child that God ‘promised’ to Abraham and his wife in their very old age. Therefore, the Old Covenant is associated with slavery and bondage under the name Hagar the slave. The New Covenant, or the Covenant of Promise, originally established with Abraham, but not fulfilled until Messiah appeared in the flesh, is associated with ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. It was promulgated from Jerusalem, not from Hagar.

  22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

  24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 (Galatians 4:22-27)

3-They differ in the atmosphere of their establishment.

The Law of Moses was delivered on:

  a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” (Hebrews 12: 18-21, See also Deuteronomy 5:23-27)

By this means a spirit of fear and bondage was administered to all the people, so as that they chose to keep at a distance, and not draw near to God, (Deuteronomy 5:23-27).

The message from Jerusalem has a free spirit of pure worship and praise without any gloom whatsoever:

  22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. ((Hebrews 12: 2-23)

4-They differed in the persons that declared them and promised there with:

In the Old Covenant the Law was given to Moses by angels and the whole church became subject to the authoritative rule of angels under it. (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19)

In the New Testament we find this subjection to the angels was not meant to last. (Hebrews 2:5) Rather the gospel was declared directly from the Son of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:17-18)

5-They differ in their mediators.

The mediator of the first covenant was Moses (Exodus 32:11-14, Hebrews 3:5) Moses stood between the people and God because the people could not endure the frightening terror and horrible gloom of His presence.

  24 And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer. 26 For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? 27 Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey.” (Deuteronomy 5:24-27)

As Moses was a mediator it is sufficiently clear the Law treated those who were under it a sinners who must not approach God.

The mediator of the New Covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one mediator between God and

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

6-They differ in their subject matter.

The Old Covenant renewed the commands of the covenant of works. The Law threatened death for sin, any kind of sin with eternal death. The Law promised life only to those who fully obeyed it with sinless obedience.

The Ten Commandments is the very words of the covenant (The Covenant of Promise to Abraham is not included under the Law, as it was actually the gospel in its pre-Christ form):

  28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 34:28)

  5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:5)

  10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:10-14)

Therefore under the strict Law had no promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist in obedience. It was therefore hopeless under the Law to obtain eternal life, so in its stead material blessing in the land of Canaan became inseparable with it.

7-They differ in the manner of their dedication.

It is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that gives it the formal nature of a covenant or testament.

The Old Covenant was sanctioned by the sacrifice of ‘beasts’, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people. (Exodus 24:5-8).

The New Testament was sanctioned by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, which became ‘the blood of the covenant’, which we remember at the Lord’s Supper.

8-They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people.

In the Old Covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office.  On account that those old priests were sinners and had to make sacrifice for their own sins, the priest were many.

In the New Covenant, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. Not only does his priesthood go uninterrupted so that He is a Priest forever, but as a Priest without sin He can officiate those things that pertain to our spirit, making us spiritually clean:

  22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.(Hebrew 10:22)

This directly speaks to the ‘guilty feeling’ that we will return to in the conclusion.

9-They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconciliation with God was proposed and was depended on.

In the Old Testament, the sacrifices offered were merely animals. They were designed to prefigure the Messiah as the only proper sacrifice for sin. They could only therefore purify the worshiper externally in order that worshippers may continue to enter into the Temple after they had encountered unclean things, meats, mold, etc.

In the gospel the Son of God offered His own Holy soul and body for the sins of the world so that anyone who believed in Him might have eternal life. (John 3:16)

10-They differ in their permanency and effectiveness of their writing.

All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned.

The principal part of the law was “carved in tables of stone” which were kept in the ark (Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7). However God ordained its foundation to be destroyed as soon as it was made, in order to show that none could meet its requirements and that never was it to be viewed as permanent.

In the New Covenant the words were not written on stone, rather they were written in the heart. This largely distinguished the two covenants and shows that the New Covenant is not just an unfolding of the same covenant, with the same nature. Rather the Old Covenant is something God himself had ‘fault’ with and God himself made obsolete.

  7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

  “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

  10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. ”

  13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:7-13, Jeremiah 31:31-34)

11-They differ in their aims.

The principal end of the Law was to discover sin, increase it, to condemn it, and to set external bounds to it through fear of punishment. Therefore it was always accompanied with judgments and punishments.

  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. (Romans 5:20)

Fear prevented sinners from sinning, but yet increased the desire making them ‘locked up’ and leading to Christ from God’s wrath:

  23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As the Law was employed in this manner as to hold sinner under the torment of their sin, the scripture refers to the Law as a Law of sin and death.  For although the Law was Holy and good, by the sinfulness of flesh it became a harsh lord over the damned doing nothing else but driving to despair in order to smash the self-righteousness of men who suppress the truth.

The aim of the New Covenant is to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God and by doing so give: repentance, remission of sin, and eternal life. (John 3:6)

In contrast to the law of sin and death, the gospel is a law of the Spirit of life. As the law brought death on mankind by one man, and so death reigned unto all, the righteousness of Christ and the obedience of one man, brings righteousness to all who believe.  Yet the power of this new law is sin in that it overwhelmed manifold sins, deaths, hells, Satan’s and curses. It came after many sins had increased the aggravation of the first sin. Yet by One man, all these offences, death, hell, curses, etc were killed by Christ death. Therefore the death of death, the death of sin, the death of Satan, the death of guilt, the death of mortality were all made by the death on the Messiah.

How was this done?  All sin was hammered into the flesh and soul of Christ making Christ the biggest sinner. And as a man who submitted and perform everything the Laws of Moses required including the submission to the baptism of John and all additional requirement that the Law had upon the Messiah as the literal 'beast' to truly remove sin under its legal bench, Christ not only took upon our sin, but released up his perfect obedience that was in turn charged onto our account.

Now if our state under Law is to be found with Christ’s very own righteousness than the law has no more purpose, abandoning its charge of us.
The Law can't accuse those who have been made perfect. The Law can only see sinners in Christ as having obeyed all its precepts from cradle to grave.
Therefore if the Devil tries to resurrect the Law and pull Christ down from heaven pointing His finger our way and saying, "Yes but you have committed many big sins, and someone must pay!".  The believer san say to the Law and the Devil who has tried to resurrect it, "Yes, and what are you going to do about it!". The devil can only than flee with his attempts and seek someone else to devour.

12-They differed in their effects.

The first covenant was a “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it brought the minds and spirits of those that were under it into servitude and bondage. This slavery and bondage was typified under the practices of the temple where none could approach God. The Most Holy Place in the temple, where God’s presence was, was accessible only to the high priest and only once a year. Approaching God in any other way than that prescribed by God was forbidden.

2 The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. (Leviticus 16:2)

Those under the Laws of Moses are considered comparatively as and underage sons, or even slaves, for even the servants of a home can boss around children in the household:

  4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Galatians 4:1-7)

As the Law (though perfect and holy) increased fear of death due to its condemnation the Devil himself used the Law to increase sin and bring them in further subjection to his malice:

  14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So it was truly the “letter that killed” them.

In the New Covenant spiritual liberty is the immediate effect. This contrast between covenants is often attributed to the gift of the Spirit, which is a Spirit of liberty in contrast to bandage and fear.

  15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

  17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

13-The level of light to relieve the conscience is different.

In the Old Covenant they did have the Promises of Abraham which was the gospel and no law. Some, and at time many were able to enter into the rest of New Covenant from afar. Even in those days faith in the promised Messiah was just as effective in providing eternal life as is faith looking back at Messiah.  However even the Prophets who predicted his coming were under darkness about what they spoke.

  17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Mathew 13:17)

Even John the Baptist who was the greatest of those prophets since He actually could see He who all the Prophets spoke of was considered less than the least of those who believed after under the New Covenant:

  11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Mathew 11:11)

In the New Covenant believers are able to obtain much clearer knowledge and faith of His incarnation, sufferings, and sacrifice, through which he made atonement for sin. This gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience:

  16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

The great difference of light and glory in the two covenants renders the Old Covenant without glory by comparison:

  10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:10)

Although there was some grace and truth in the Old Covenant, for all the ceremonies prefigured Messiah and the Law is perfect and holy, yet by comparison the scripture speaks as there was no truth or grace before Jesus Christ:

  17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

14-The mode of governance in the level external details and rites are different:

In the Old Covenant many ceremonies were required because each was not good enough to foreshadow Messiah. Therefore many laws were added and increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies, imposed on them. This made the whole of their worship a burden to them, and insupportable:

  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  (Acts 15:10)

This burden, in addition to sin itself, must have been at least in part the simple appeal of Christ’s call:

  28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Mathew 11:28-30)

In summary when we understand that the Law was meant to lead to Christ it must now be obvious that it directed away from itself to the Promise made to Abraham.

He suffered them to all sort of fears, bondage, guilt and restlessness so that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance. Even those who entered into that faith, they saw things too faintly to full obtain the same freedom and boldness which is now proclaimed under the gospel.

Under the New Covenant there is freedom from the commanding power of the law as far as it required perfect obedience and increased our sin by making us aware of sin without providing any help to obey. On this account we can consider all our good deed under an accusing conscience as ‘garbage’ and in full liberty cling to Christ’s righteousness alone apart from any of our own efforts of faithfulness and holiness:

  8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (Philippians 3:8-9)

  28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

We are free from all the condemnation itself because Christ absorbed all its threats and curses:

Conclusion:

From surveying the difference between the Law and the Gospel we have more than enough knowledge to accurately answer why 'guilty feelings' are encouraged under the Law as part of its bondage and the removal of those feelings by the 'sprinkling of blood' as one of the rests tendered in the gospel.

Since the gospel frees the conscience from the power, condemnation, curse, fear of death, ceremonial reminder of guilt, terrifying civil of punishments and any other thing that might make us feel unworthy of joyfully approaching the throne of grace with boldness in a spirit of liberty we have no reason to carry on under the gloomy dread of guilt.

But someone may ask, "Yes but if you sin you must feel guilty?" But this question is not reasonable. Yes we sin every day yet we do not feel guilty every day as Christ was punished for the sin.  "Oh No!", some might say.  "This is encouraging sin that grace may abound!". But not true again when looking at the scriptures. A liberated conscience from the curse of the Law brings true holiness and guilt merely increases sin, even when its outward form is bound in prison under fear.  Therefore the person who claims these things only deceives himself and increases his own sin, while judging those who are free. This is why Hagar and Jerusalem are symbols of people today.

The real relationship of sin to guilt, is that when we do not believe in God's grace with sufficient faith as to thoroughly cleanse the conscience then our minds become subject more and more to the flesh which is still under the Law. As our mind become more and more fleshly we can't get rid of guilt no matter what we do, for guilt can't be washed by the blood of beats which include any fleshly thought we may use to comfort ourselves. No, only faith can clean the conscience from the guilt of sin, and once the conscience is cleansed and a joyful praise resounds in the liberated soul, then and only then does faith go on to produce to holiness and works.

Guilt is not cleansed by works, but by faith.  This is the practical application of living by the Spirit and not by the works of the Law.
Every other notion is madness and sin.

And by all these and any other instances of spiritual liberty, the gospel frees believers from that “spirit of slavery", "guilt" and "fear” administered under the Old Covenant.


How can Christians know if they are truly saved and that Jesus won't tell them "..Depart from me, I never knew you," on judgement day? In the Bible, it says God knows everything about us- intimately. So, if He KNOWS us, how could He NOT know us and tell us to depart from Him? I'm so confused. I thought I was saved, been to church, pray, speak to Jesus and pray to Him CONSTANTLY. But lately I've been feeling abandoned by Him and it has caused me to completely lose faith in Him. Feels like He couldn't be farther from me and like He doesn't love me. I have been so hard on myself and really spent a lot of time in introspection trying to figure out what I could be doing wrong. I'm not perfect, but I've left so much of my sinful ways behind. I also wonder if I truly am saved. Do Christians absolutely HAVE to be baptized? Maybe that's my problem- maybe I need to get baptized(?) I just don't understand why I'm feeling this way.

Your many questions touch on an area of Christian thought over which sincere and well-informed Christians have long debated: the assurance of salvation. Some denominations believe that such assurance is commonly available to believers, some that it is granted specially by God to select believers, and the rest that no person can have complete assurance since everything could change before they die should they lapse back into gross sin.
Some Protestants hold that such assurance is possible, among them those that hold to these confessions of faith:
The Canons of Dort (1618–1619) and Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) give similar answers for the sources of assurance for those in Christ.

Assurance comes from faith in the promises of God.
Assurance comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying to our spirits that we are children of God.
Assurance comes from “a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works” (Canons of Dort 5.10).

The above is excerpted from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/assurance/
That article also list many scripture verses related for the topic, including those that a believer may apply to themselves as a test to see if they are walking in faith. One scripture commonly cited is:

This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our
hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that
God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends,
if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and
receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do
what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of
his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The
one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is
how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
(1 John 3:19-24, NIV)

This and the rest of 1 John deal with spiritual discernment, including how to tell if you are walking in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for Christians to experience times when they doubt their salvation. This touches on another distinction: the believer’s subjective condition versus objective position. Our condition is how we feel, and our feelings are changeable. Our position is what Jesus has done and promised. Christ’s finished work is unalterable, perfect, and complete, and his promises true and unbreakable. One of the challenges we all face is to learn to look to the Bible and its eternal truths and lean on Christ instead of trusting our feelings. Our feelings are sand. His Word is a rock.
Even for those denominations which believe in perfect assurance, this state is attained after a period of effort, prayer, repentance, Bible study and maturation, and yes - suffering. Suffering especially dispels the delusory conceit of false believers because only true faith can survive such suffering. Thus you will find in the Book of Job that his clearest apprehension of the character of the savior occurred in the midst of his suffering.
The below is summarized from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_(theology)
These are by no means the only views found in Christendom.
Methodism. John Wesley believed a believer can have perfect assurance as to whether they have saving faith NOW. They can lose it tomorrow through gross sin.
Lutheranism. Martin Luther taught that believers can be assured of salvation.
Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that believers may have assurance of their salvation especially through the work of the Holy Spirit and also by looking at the character of their lives. The idea that because good works necessarily result from true faith one can gain assurance by observing evidences of faith in their life is called the practical syllogism.
Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that an infallible certitude of final salvation, as supposed in Calvinism, is not a usual experience, as seen in the sixteenth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent:
"If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
Baptism.
Some denominations insist that Baptism is required for salvation, others do not. I am a Baptist and do not believe it necessary for salvation, but it is an act of obedience and obeying Jesus is a good thing. What Baptists believe is that Baptism is the entrance into the body of Christ - the church - and communion is the continuation of that fellowship. You mention doubts and inner conflict. You say nothing about the church. Regular fellowship with a healthy, Bible believing church is essential if you want to overcome these feelings and attain a spirit of self control. I never would have found the assurance I have without the support of my college Bible study and later my church.
Harvest. Regardless of whether you believe in an absolute assurance or not, every denomination has room for times of spiritual harvest. The road out of the place you now find yourself is toward your next spiritual harvest. It may be useful to assess where you are along that process.

Preparation. Sovereign acts of God to set the stage.
Plowing. Suffering that may seem to have no purpose or redeeming value.
Planting. Receiving new teaching from the Bible. The devil will try to trick you out of believing, like the bird snatching the seed. Find more mature Christians to help you work through your doubt and confusion. Meditate on Jesus. This is the battle for your mind.
Pouring. The hot sun and rocky soil of hardship and persecution will try to scare you out of believing. You need the Holy Spirit to soften your rocky heart through the conviction of sin to repentance. That same Holy Spirit will comfort your heart and relieve you of your fear and grant you courage. This is the battle for your heart.
Plucking. The weeds are cares and worries that your flesh will use to distract you from the faith. The antidote is to focus your priorities away from materialistic goals toward spiritual ones and adopt new habits of behavior. Appeal to the father to help you rearrange your surroundings and relationships to foster this change. This is the battle for your hands.
Produce a Harvest. Son, Spirit and Father work together to produce a beneficial outcome in your life and the life of the people you serve. This harvest is tangible evidence that your faith is real.
Peace. You experience a time of peace. Then you begin working toward a new harvest.

I have gone through many such harvest cycles in my life. One lasted about two months. Some lasted a few years. One lasted about fifteen years. Sometimes they overlap. One constant has been that the Word (seed) often made no sense at first, or seemed to do nothing. Seeds do not grow overnight. Looking back, I see that Bible passages that made no sense when I first read them transformed my life in big ways later on. Expect this.


Can God replace his covenent with Abraham? In the book of Genesis, God makes the covenant of circumcision with Abraham for him and his descendants.  In verse 7 we are told this is an everlasting covenant.
How does this go in hand with the fact that a new covenant is established by at the Last Supper?
This question is addressed to any Churches that believe in the New Covenant theology (Catholic,Lutheran,Reformed,etc.)

We know that Paul refers to this passage in a spiritual type as circumcising the heart.

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Paul has not created a new understanding of circumcision of the heart, but is following the same idea presented in centuries before from the Old Testament.

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Deut 17:11 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart,

Thus "covenant of circumcision" is not understood as of the foreskin, but of the heart.  And at the same time, it remains an eternal covenant, as found in the seed Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Of course, not all understood the spiritual and the seed, rather than the physical.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This misunderstanding eventually led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
So, the covenant of circumcision understood as referring to Jesus Christ and of the heart is an eternal covenant.


If God is one then why is belief in God insufficient? The title is a bit misleading since it's limited in characters so I'll try my best to explain:

Christianity teaches (at least many forms do) that one must attain salvation through acceptance of Christ. Furthermore, there is only 1 God - Christ and God are one in the same.

If God is one, then why do some teach that Jews for instance, who presumably believe in the same God as Christians, cannot be saved by merely believing in this God?

Doesn't the precondition that one must specifically accept one "form" (I apologize if I am misusing terminology) of God suggest that God is not in fact singular?

To put it the other way around, if God is one, then purely by a logical tautology, why isn't accepting any or all of his forms sufficient for salvation?

Simply put, If you imagine God as a house, then Jesus is the door -

  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 ESV (cf. John 10:1-9)

If you want to go in, you go through him.  The door is part of the house and inextricably linked to (one with) it:

  [ Jesus: ] "I and the Father are one." - John 10:30 ESV (cf. John 14:9, Hebrews 1:1-3)

Once through the door, you have access to the whole house:

  For through him [Christ] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. - Ephesians 2:18 ESV (cf. Romans 5:2)

But if you seek to go another way, at best you will only ever get glimpses through a window, you will not actually enter in (to true fellowship with the living God by adoption into His family) and more likely you will either be staring at a blank wall or falling in a ditch!

  No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. - 1 John 2:23 ESV (cf. John 3:35-36, Romans 8)

Note the 'must' in Acts 4:10-12 -

  10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (ESV, emphasis added)

Prior to the New Covenant, God made provision for people to approach him by Faith in His grace and mercy through the ways He showed them to approach him at that particular time (to Abraham it was by believing his word and travelling out in obedience, under the Mosaic Covenant, it was by seeking to be obedient to God's law and exercising faith in the efficacy of the tabernacle/temple sacrifices to atone for sin [which were a shadow of what was to come] when (inevitably!) falling short of God's standard). These means were never meant to be stand alone systems that could provide their benefit independantly of a continued faith in God and obedience to His ways, but they were always contingent on the more perfect means of Salvation that God had prepared to be the substance of their fore-shadowing from all eternity past - which remained veiled until it was finally revealed through the work of the Father's only begotten son - Jesus Christ who represents the clear and infallible (not in any way speculative) way of salvation - if you put your trust in him you must be saved.

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
  5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
  “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
      but a body have you prepared for me;
  6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you have taken no pleasure.
  7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
      as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
  8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
  11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:1-14 ESV (emphasis added)

In summary: You asked -

If God is one then why is belief in God insufficient?

The short answer is that belief in God is entirely sufficient if by that you mean trusting him entirely and accepting the perfect way He has shown us to approach Him and fellowship with Him (i.e. Through Christ); If you don't trust in the way He has provided though (especially if you actually reject it!), the (orthodox/Nicaean) Christian perspective is that you are not actually believing (i.e. trusting and obeying) God

So well we might say:

  how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? - Hebrews 2:3a ESV


Did Rome prefer that Catholic clergy not work for national governments? What has been the Catholic Church's position about its clergy taking jobs serving national governments? I have two examples, from the History question "Which Catholic priests were given diplomatic missions?":

Cardinal Wolsey
Canon Fernández de San Vicente

I want to understand whether Rome and its representatives approved of these men's government appointments, looked the other way, or opposed them.

Did Rome prefer that Catholic clergy not work for national governments?

The short answer is historically possibly yes and no, but in modern times it is a definitely yes.

Things have changed over the centuries and Rome has become more explicit and demanding as to what or what not a Catholic priest may or may not do.

The political situation in past centuries is no where near what it is today.

Prior to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, these would have been decided on an individual basis.

  The corresponding canons in the 1917 code made the same general assertions about the need for Catholic clerics to avoid activities that are considered unsuitable for them, and even provided some detailed examples. They specified that clergy should not go hunting, or even enter a tavern without a just cause, practise medicine without their superior’s approval or work as lawyers in civil courts. As for holding public office, the former code noted that as a rule, the clergy were not to seek or accept such a role without the permission of their own bishop (or in the case of clerics who were members of religious institutions, their religious superior), and the bishop of the territory in which the election is being held.

  Keep in mind that the world was different place back 1917, and the Church back at that time foresaw instances in which a priest might reasonably be allowed to work as an elected official in some countries. Back then, numerous countries had laws declaring Catholicism the official state religion, and so the relationship between the civil government and the Catholic Church in these nations was very different from the one that we Americans are accustomed to today. - Can Priests Hold Public Office?

In modern days, priest are no longer be allowed to hold any public office at all. Pope John Paul II made this very clear in the new code of Canon Law (1982) with the following statement:

  Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

  §2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

  §3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

Since the new code was promulgated, the Vatican has taken this subject matter very serious. I can still remember see Father Fernando Cardenal kneeling down to receive the blessing of Pope John Paul II in 1984 and seeing the Roman  Pontiff refuse to bless him. In fact, Pope John Paul II waged his finger at him saying something like “when you will obey!”

  During his visit to Nicaragua in 1983, Pope John Paul II publicly reprimanded Fr Ernesto Cardenal as the priest knelt to welcome the pope at Managua airport.

  Pope John Paul suspended Fr Cardenal along with a number of other priests – Maryknoll priest Fr Miguel D’Escoto and Fr Cardenal’s brother, Jesuit Fr Fernando Cardenal. A fourth priest, Fr Edgar Parrales, who was ambassador to the Organization of American States, requested laicization. - John Paul II’s sanction on Nicaraguan priest–poet lifted

More information may be found in the following article(s):

What is the basis for priests being told to stay out of politics?
Catholic priests in public office (Wikipedia)
Fernando Cardenal, Catholic priest who defied church to serve in Sandinista government, dies at 82


Has Revelation 14:9 changed from bibles printed over 40 years ago? I used to have a nice picture bible growing up and I read and re-read Revelations growing up as a kid. I recently heard that verse but it's not as I remember it. Did it always say "or in the hand?" or just forehead?

BibleGateway.com has about fifty English translations of this verse, and they all include hand.

This includes older translations like the KJV, RSV, and The Living Bible (1971).  Of course, Bible Gateway is not exhaustive, so it's possible that you had a children's Bible using a different translation or paraphrase.

That said, it's clear that the inclusion of hand in this passage is not a recent development.


Does the Minimal Facts Argument have the potential to the biggest Christian revelation over the last thousand years? I recently came across the "Minimal Facts Argument" by Dr Gary Habermas. In short, the argument is that there are a half dozen reliable historical facts (even for those who'd judge the NT as unreliable) showing that the disciples of Jesus went through a powerful transformation based on their experience of the resurrected Jesus, from which we can conclude that the resurrection of Jesus is historically defensible.

I've been a Christian for 26 years and it struck me very very hard and it occurs to me that this line of reasoning has already adjusted the academic majority view substantially over the last 40 years (since its inception).

My question is: does the argument have the potential to be as long term ground breaking within the church (and it's Christian theology) as it is largely not common knowledge among Christians, whereas it has been able to utterly revolutionise academia (where it turned a whole myriad of cynics' presuppositions upside-down) i.e. could it end up being the biggest landmark "discovery" of the last thousand years?

I must say it has markedly increased my emphasis on the historicity of the gospels.

Although I admit I hadn't heard of Habermas prior to this question, it can't be denied that he is an important figure in Apologetics, as evidenced by him being in the top 14 authors by number of index references in Groothuis's textbook Christian Apologetics.

The Minimal Facts Argument (MFA) does not exist in isolation. It is a specific form of apologetic argument in the broader approach of Evidential Apologetics. Habermas is not the only proponent of this approach, and though I don't know who first developed it as a distinct approach to apologetics, Habermas is the youngest of the proponents listed in Wikipedia, making me think it's pretty unlikely that he was its founder.

Evidential Apologetics itself is really a development of so-called Classical Apologetics. Groothuis explains their relationship as follows: Classical Apologetics has a two-step strategy: arguing first for a monotheistic God, and then for the particulars of Christianity, focusing on miracles, the incarnation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Evidentialism has a one-step strategy, jumping straight to the argument of the historicity of Christ and the resurrection, its proponents arguing that the fact of the resurrection is enough to bring someone directly from atheism to faith in Christ, without needing to be convinced of theism first.

It is natural for Christian apologists to give a heavy focus to the death and resurrection of Jesus - it is the centre of our gospel of course! More than that, it seems to me that the MFA is really just a particular formulation of another common argument, often called the Transformation of the Disciples. Two popular pop-level apologetics books, Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ each include it as part of their Cumulative approach to apologetics. McDowell quotes none other than John Stott saying "Perhaps the transformation of the disciples of Jesus is the greatest evidence of all for the resurrection", and Strobel interviewed J. P. Moreland who says that his first line of evidence for the resurrection is the transformation of the disciples.

Furthermore, it is also quite common for apologists to present first the extra-Biblical evidences for Jesus. Though many have written on these topics, few do it as well as John Dickson's The Christ Files, which considers in order the secular Greco-Roman sources about Jesus, then the hostile witness of Jewish sources, before finally considering the Christian witness.

In summary, The Minimal Facts Argument is unlikely to be revolutionary within Christianity because it is far from a revolutionary argument. The ideas it conveys are actually well recognised and are given a place of top importance by many apologists. (For this reason I'm highly doubtful that you can attribute the change within secular academia of almost universal acknowledgement of the historicity of Jesus to the MFA.) The MFA is one way of building an argument on these facts, but it is not the only way to do so. And because most apologists do not subscribe to the Evidentialist approach, I think the specific form of MFA may end up being overlooked compared to those who present the very similar Transformation of the Disciples argument within a Cumulative approach.


According to the Catholic Church, why did Jesus walk on water? Why did Jesus walk on water?

In the gospel of Mark we see Jesus  walking on water, but why?

Is He fulfilling the law? He could have been walking on clouds or flying like an angel around them or any other miracle if it was to show the power of the Messiah.

TL;DR to teach his disciples to believe in Him

In the account of walking on water in Mark, there is also a reference to Jesus being master of the elements (which links back to Job 38 as a sign of divinity).  That sign of divinity is also demonstrated in Matthew 8 through a  boat narrative.

  "Who is this man, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" ~ Matthew
  8:27

Jesus used this event in the boat to both demonstrate how important faith in him is, and to anchor that faith in his demonstration of divinity: control of the elements.  This is referred to in both Mark and John.
Mark 6(NAB)

  46 And when he had taken leave of them, he went off to the mountain to pray.
  47  When it was evening, the boat was far out on the sea and he was
  alone on shore.  48  Then he saw that they were tossed about while
  rowing, for the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the
  night, he came toward them walking on the sea. He meant to pass by
  them.  49  But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it
  was a ghost and cried out.  50 They had all seen him and were
  terrified. But at once he spoke with them, “Take courage, it is I, do
  not be afraid!”  51 He got into the boat with them and the wind died
  down. They were [completely] astounded.

John 6 (NAB)

  16 When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea,  17
  embarked in a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum. It had
  already grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.  18  The sea
  was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. 19  When they had
  rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea
  and coming near the boat*, and they began to be afraid. 20  But he said
  to them, “It is I.* Do not be afraid.”

In Mark, the wind dies down, whereas in John that isn't mentioned. In both, he is teaching his disciples to (1) have faith in him (2) and to not be fearful.

Catholic Belief/Commentary

This gospel account is a point of departure for a variety of teaching.  The most common themes I've heard in homilies over the years are that (1) it demonstrates Jesus' mastery of the elements (2) he is teaching his disciples about faith.  (An example homily is at the link in the citation from Matthew).

Catholic Commentary

From St Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea, commentary on Mark 6:

  Glossa: The Lord indeed by the miracle of the loaves *shewed that He is the Creator of the world: but now by walking on the waves He proved
  that He had a body free from the weight of all sin, and by appeasing
  the winds and by calming the rage of the waves, He declared Himself to
  be the Master of the elements.*

  Theophilus of Antioch: Then by entering into the ship, the Lord restrained the tempest.  For it continues, “And He went up unto them
  into the ship, and the wind ceased.”  Great indeed is the miracle of
  our Lord’s walking on the sea, but the tempest and the contrary wind
  were there as well, to make the miracle greater.

Are the above the limits of RCC belief or teaching?  No, they are commentaries on scripture from early theologians/church fathers consistent with scripture (though the glossa appears to be either Aquinas' own interpretation, or that of an unattributed church father/theologian).

RCC Dogma is not necessary.

Jesus walking on water is not controversial.  There's no need for a discrete teaching about why Jesus did that; it is explained sufficiently in Scripture.

Don't cherry pick Mark; check other Gospels for comparison

Scripture is pretty clear on the message being sent: (1) Jesus' divinity and (2) a vivid demonstration of the same to encourage his disciples to believe in him, and to not be afraid.  (This encouragement to not be afraid would be put to the test after the crucifixion, but that's off topic for this question).


What is the significance of Ehud being left-handed? In Judges 3 we find an interesting story about Israel's left-handed assassin and his hit on Moab's obese king, Eglon.

  Judges 3:15-22 ESV Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes. And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute. But he himself turned back at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence. And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.

Is there a historical/cultural/spiritual/sensible reason we're explicitly told he was left-handed? It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to the outcome.

Ehud was a Benjamite and the phrase translated "left handed man" is a very interesting Hebrew idiom. It literally reads "a man bound/restricted in his right hand." The same phrase is used in Judges 20:16 to describe 700 slingers (also of the tribe of Benjamin). These two verses are the only places where this idiom is used.

  Judges 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men bound in the right hand; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss. [KJV with the left handed idiom shown more literally]

There is another phrase used much more frequently to describe being left handed or turning to the left. It appears 54 times in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 13:9; 14:15).

Noting that both instances of this idiom refer to Benjamites, the translators' notes on the NET state:

  Perhaps the Benjaminites purposely trained several of their young men to be left-handed warriors by restricting the use of the right hand from an early age so the left hand would become dominant. Left-handed men would have a distinct military advantage, especially when attacking city gates. See B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery,” BRev 4 (1988): 35.

1 Chronicles 12:2 also mentions a squad of ambidextrous soldiers who were also Benjamites. David's general Joab is also shown to be either left handed or ambidextrous in 2 Samuel 20:8-10. He grabs his opponents beard with his right hand while holding a sword in his left. The opponent takes no heed of the sword in his left and is undefended when Joab strikes. (See also the Iliad, 21.161-68, where Asteropaios, being ambidextrous, throws two spears at once at Achilles.)

When Ehud approached the room to see Eglon, he would have been inspected by the guards. As being right handed was more common then (just as it is now), they would have searched his left side for a concealed weapon more carefully than the right. A right handed person draws a long blade from the left side. Apparently, upon seeing the left side was clear, they didn't search the right for hidden weapons. After all, it was unlikely that he could draw and use a blade from that side.

Aside

The military advantage to being left handed are such as the enemy expects to be fighting a right handed man. The lefty has the element of surprise which even for a few seconds can determine the outcome. This holds only for individual combat. Units fighting together would want all to be using the same hand. Then, if you have a whole unit of lefties against a unit of righties, you have the left advantages again. They are trained to fight righties (and are attacking the unshielded side), while the righties have to rethink and mirror every offensive move they make while trying to stay alive.

In the Lincoln Cathedral, the spiral staircases are wrong handed and were defended by men from a Scottish clan almost exclusively left handed. The reversed direction caused invaders to be holding their weapons and shields on the wrongs sides as they tried to climb, but the defenders would fight unhindered.


Was the Trinity severed during the crucifixion? When speaking about the crucifixion, I have heard from many Protestant's (mostly evangelical non-denominational Christians) state that the Trinity was severed or broken when Jesus was on the cross.
I don't understand the biblical basis of this or how it is possible. Was it miraculously restored when after the resurrection? According to Catholicism, what is the view on this? If they do agree that it was severed, what is the biblical verses that explain this?

Was the Trinity severed during the the crucifixion?
The answer is NO.  While I cannot find a specifically Catholic source for this answer, I did find a well-written article by Paul Copan a credentialed philosophy professor with degrees in theology and philosophy: Was the Trinity Broken at the Cross? who in turn relies on a 2012 book Forsaken by a professor of theology Thomas McCall.  I'm pretty sure that the explanation of how the Trinity was intact is acceptable to Catholics as well.
Here are several points from the article that addressed your questions:

The idea that there was a break within the Trinity at crucifixion is a modern development, most notable through the liberal theologian Jürgen Moltmann who wrote an influential 1972 book The Crucified God.

From the point of church history, church fathers and theologians—from the likes of Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus to Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and beyond) did not take this view; they would have rejected what is a fairly recent theological development.

The Bible verse most likely to support a broken Trinity is Ps 22:1 which Jesus uttered from the cross in Mt 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

but that is taking the verse out of context since later in Psalm 22 the psalmist turned to a note of triumph (v24):

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Other Bible verses Matt 27:50 and Mk 15:37 seem to emphasize separation (Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed His last / yielded up his spirit).  But notice that we are not told what he said.  Furthermore, parallel crucifixion accounts from Luke and John showed union between Father and Son:

In John 19:30, Jesus cries triumphantly, “It is finished!”
Jesus tells a criminal that he will be with him when he comes into his kingdom. Jesus says, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). This doesn’t like a God-forsaken Son.
Jesus also calls on the Father while on the cross to extend forgiveness: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk. 23:34).
Jesus finally says, “Father, into your hands I commit My spirit” (Lk. 23:46) — again, no indication of a broken union—only that of a deep fellowship with his Father. We have a string of affirmations that the Trinity was united rather than broken, nor did “the Father turn his face away.”

"Dividing God into parts is not possible metaphysically"

By his very nature, God is necessarily triune; so the deep, unbreakable interrelationships between the persons of the Trinity cannot be broken. Indeed, the persons of the Trinity have mutually-indwelt one another from eternity (perichoresis [Greek]; circumincessio [Latin]), and they are necessarily bound up with each other. The persons of the Trinity are not detachable “parts” of God.
Furthermore, there is no opposition or lack of harmony between these persons. The Father does not “take out his wrath” on the Son. The saving plan of the Trinity before the Incarnation was mutually agreed upon by all persons of the Trinity from eternity. ...
Just as the Son is not forced by the Father to die but voluntarily lays down his life and takes it up again (Jn. 10:18), so the Father is lovingly and reconcilingly involved in the death of Jesus: “God [the Father] was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). The triune God—not just the Father—is wrathful against sin, and the triune God—not just the Son—is lovingly involved in redemption. Love and wrath are not opposed to each other in God. Rather, wrath flows from the love of God.

"We can still speak of a kind of “abandonment” without speaking of a broken Trinity or of the Father’s pouring out his wrath on Jesus—as though the Son of God is not wrathful against sin."

(for more explanation why Trinity was not broken, please refer to the article linked above)
Conclusion:

In the end, we do not have any rift within the Trinity. This is not biblical; it is not in keeping with the stream of Christian theology over the centuries; and it is utterly impossible metaphysically. Rather, we have a Triune God who is involved not only in creation (Gen. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:1-3), but also in the redemption of human beings.

P.S.: nathan.j.mcdougall's comment on penal substitution and Thomas McCall's defense of it while keeping Trinity intact is worth preserving:

The fact that particular Protestant formulations of the atonement (namely, Penal Substitutionary ones) ostensibly lead to either a rupture of Christ's human and divine natures, or else of the Trinity itself, is the basis for a Catholic argument against such models of the atonement. But generally Protestants would deny that such ruptures can take place, as Catholics would.


What was influence of Thomism on the Council of Trent? What was influence of Thomism on the Council of Trent? Did anyone study this question and write some article, essay or book on this topic?

St. Thomas had great influence on Trent, and several of his teachings became, almost verbatim, defined dogma at that council. From the encyclical Æterni Patris (1879) on the restoration of Christian philosophy by Pope Leo XIII:

  The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa [Theologica] of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

See also "The Twenty-Four Fundamental Theses of Official Catholic Philosophy" by P. Lumbreras, O.P., S.T.Lr., Ph.D., and the Testimonies of the Popes on St. Thomas Aquinas, which cites Berthier, O.P.'s Testimonia Ecclesiæ.


What is the justification for applying God's promises to Israel to modern day Christians? One of the favourite verse, used as encouragement, is this from Jeremiah 29:11

  "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to
  prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

The context of the verse was a letter to the exile, specifying the Israelites. What justification is offered for the application of God's promises to Israel to modern day Christians?

The promises made to Israel were conditional promises. He had plans for them if they obeyed and kept His Holy Commandments. The rest of the nations were supposed to see Israel and come to God through their example.

  'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then
  you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the
  earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy
  nation.'

  Exodus 19:5, 6

Unfortunately, they did not obey, nor did they listen.

  For they have not listened to my words,” declares the Lord, “words
  that I sent to them again and again by my servants the prophets. And
  you exiles have not listened either,” declares the Lord.

  Jeremiah 29:19

As in the Parable of the Tenants told by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-44 the privilege of being part of Abraham's true seed, the True Israel, the Kingdom of God was taken away from those who rejected it and given to those who accepted it, Jew or Gentile.

  “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from
  you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who
  falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls
  will be crushed.”

  Matthew 21:43-44

Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of Israel.

  "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of
  the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of
  Israel.

  Matthew 10:5, 6

Nevertheless, at the stoning of Stephen, he made one final appeal to the Israelites:

  “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still
  uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the
  Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not
  persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the
  Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who
  have received the law that was given through angels but have not
  obeyed it.”

  Acts 7:51-53

And so the gospel went to everyone, and not only the Jew. If we love God, believe in Christ, and obey His Holy Law, as the Israelites of old failed to do, we ARE Abraham's seed. These promises that were made to Israel were conditional promises, and they still are!

According to Paul, we, as modern day Christians are the true Israelites. This is because

  if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs
  according to the promise.

  Galatians 3:29

Now, the kingdom of priests and the holy nation are not physical Israel, but Spiritual Israel, who are those who believe on Jesus and keep His Holy Law.

  But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's
  special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called
  you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

  1 Peter 2:9

These promises can be claimed by those who are in Christ.


What is the history behind/Origin of the doxology that often gets added to the end of the Lord's prayer? Quite often when I hear Protestants recite the Lord's prayer, they include a doxology on the end "For the kingdom the power and he glory are yours, now and forever".

I can't find this doxology in the Lord's prayer as recorded in scripture, so I find it amusing that protestants include it considering they are so insistent on doing things in accordance with scripture.

The reason I'm bothering to ask the question is because today I attended my first "New Testament Greek" class and we had to translate the Lord's prayer from the Greek. The Greek version that our lecturer presented did indeed include the doxology and I was a bit confused by that.

So my question in summary: what is the history behind this doxology? Where does it come from?

(I note that Catholics also say this doxology during their liturgy, however it is separate to the Lord's Prayer, which finishes with "and deliver us from evil")

I can't find this doxology in the lords prayer as recorded in
  scripture

It is in the King James Version:

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine
  is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

but the underlying Greek is missing in some manuscripts.  Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.) explains:

  The ascription at the close of the Lord’s Prayer occurs in several
  forms. In K L W Δ Θ Π f 13 al it is the familiar triple strophic form,
  whereas the Sahidic and Fayyumic (like the form quoted in the Didache)
  lack ἡ βασιλεία καί, the Curetonian Syriac lacks ἡ δύναμις καί, and
  the Old Latin k reads simply “for thine is the power for ever and
  ever.” Some Greek manuscripts expand “for ever” into “for ever and
  ever,” and most of them add “amen.” Several late manuscripts (157 225
  418) append a trinitarian ascription, “for thine is the kingdom and
  the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit for ever. Amen.” The same expansion occurs also at the close of
  the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy that is traditionally ascribed to St.
  John Chrysostom.

  The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives
  of the Alexandrian (א B), the Western (D and most of the Old Latin),
  and other (f 1) types of text, as well as early patristic commentaries
  on the Lord’s Prayer (those of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian), suggests
  that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps
  on the basis of 1 Chr 29:11–13) in order to adapt the Prayer for
  liturgical use in the early church. Still later scribes added “of the
  Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Since the phrase is omitted in the modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, many modern translations (e.g. NIV) omit the phrase as well.  The RSV footnotes, "Other authorities, some ancient, add, in some form, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen."

The phrase is included in the 1904 Patriarchal Text of Constantinople, which is an "official" version of sorts for the Greek Orthodox Church and Greek-speaking Orthodox jurisdictions and is very close to the so-called "Majority Text".  The Patriarchal Text is based on copies of copies of copies of manuscripts that have been passed down over the centuries in various Orthodox monasteries (the Orthodox Church is not very fanatical about "autographs").  So we have kind of a weird situation in that the Greek-speaking churches mentioned in the New Testament that continue to exist today use a Biblical text that is considered less than authentic by non-Greek Bible scholars in the New World.

As Metzger implies, it is also found in the Liturgy of John Chrysostom.  In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the final doxology is usually spoken by the priest after the reader has completed the Lord's Prayer.  We (Orthodox) do not normally say the doxology in our private prayers.


What is a gospel, and how many gospels are there in the Catholic Bible? Is there a difference between 'books' and 'gospels'? I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just four gospels in total: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

How many gospels are there in the Roman Catholic Bible?

The quantity of gospels are the same in both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. There are only four, in the same order, at the beginning of the New Testament.

  Are there only gospels in the New Testament?

No, the New Testament contains other books, including:

"Acts of the Apostles" (also known as "Acts," "Book of Acts"), which is a chronicle of the acts and ministry which the apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ performed after his resurrection and ascension. It is commonly attributed to the physician, Luke.
twenty-one epistles (an epistle is a letter)

thirteen epistles written by the apostle Paul

Epistle to the Romans (also known as "Romans")
First Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as "1 Corinthians")
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as "2 Corinthians")
Epistle to the Galatians (also known as "Galatians")
Epistle to the Ephesians (also known as "Ephesians")
Epistle to the Philippians (also known as "Philippians")
Epistle to the Colossians (also known as "Colossians")
First Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as "1 Thessalonians")
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as "2 Thessalonians")
First Epistle to Timothy (also known as "1 Timothy")
Second Epistle to Timothy (also known as "2 Timothy")
Epistle to Titus (also known as "Titus")
Epistle to Philemon (also known as "Philemon")

one epistle written to the Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., the Hebrews), sometimes attributed to the apostle Paul, but whose author is otherwise considered to be unknown

Epistle to the Hebrews (also known as "Hebrews")

one epistle written by James, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ

Epistle of James (also known as "James")

two epistles written by the apostle Peter

First Epistle of Peter (also known as "1 Peter")
Second Epistle of Peter (also known as "2 Peter")

three epistles supposedly written by a John, perhaps the same author as the Gospel of John

First Epistle of John (also known as "1 John")
Second Epistle of John (also known as "2 John")
Third Epistle of John (also known as "3 John")

one epistle written by Jude, another brother of the Lord Jesus Christ

Epistle of Jude (also known as "Jude")

the Book of Revelation (formerly known as "the Apocalypse"; also known as "Revelation")

  What are the names of gospels?

The names of the gospels in order are:

Gospel of Matthew (also known as "Matthew")
Gospel of Mark (also known as "Mark")
Gospel of Luke (also known as "Luke")
Gospel of John (also known as "John")

  Is there a difference between books and gospels?

The smallest division of the Bible is a "verse." A collection of related verses (not necessarily composed by the same author) is a "book." The Protestant Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic Bible not only contains those books found in the Protestant Bible but additional books known as deuterocanonical books. (However, if you ask a Catholic, they would probably say that the Protestant Bible is missing these books.)

A gospel is a book of the Bible. It is simply a different genre of literature than the other books of the Bible (e.g., epistles).

  I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just 4 gospels in total, including: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and no others between the Old and New Testament?

The latter. There are only four gospels in both Protestant and Catholic Bibles. There is absolutely no exception to this.


What are the differences between demoninations regarding baptism/confirmation? Specifically, which churches practice child-baptism but not confirmation?

A Brazilian friend recently shocked me by saying that her church does not practice confirmations. The wiki page for Baptism has an extensive comparison of baptism rites, however it does not go into detail about confirmation.

As I understand it the following is standard in the major denominations. Perhaps it would be useful to explain the differences relative to this.

  Baptism is an induction into the Christian faith which necessarily
  involves a public declaration of faith and
  wetting/immersion/submersion with water. If the baptism is performed
  before the person has 'come of age' (usually coincides with puberty
  and reaching the age of 13 years), then the parents and godparents
  make the declaration on behalf of the child.

  Once a baptised child has 'come of age' (as described earlier) they
  may choose to undergo confirmation, which is a public declaration of
  faith and does not necessarily involve water.

  A person can only take part in communion if they have undergone an
  adult baptism or confirmation.

I think your question is probably about infant baptism, not child baptism. The latter isn't really a term used by churches. Those that would baptism young children but not infants would generally call this "believers baptism". If the child is too young to make even a simplistic declaration of faith then they probably fall under the umbrella of "infant" baptism.

Of those churches that practice infant baptism some major ones (including Catholics) usually implement some form of confirmation before offering communion and full membership in the visible church.

On the other side, there are many traditions (some Presbyterians and other Reformed traditions for example) that understand children of believers to be full participants in the visible church—recipients of God's grace and promises and as such responsible for keeping his commandments. In addition to infant baptism, these churches will usually offer communion to children of believing members. Children are both under the instruction and discipline of their family and, like their family heads, also under the instruction and discipline of the church. They may, of course, choose as they grow up to reject what they have been taught and believe or practice something contrary to the teachings entrusted to them. In this case they are automatically considered responsible based on what they have been given and like any other member of the church, disciplined up to an including excommunication which is simply a declaration that their life is in some way unrepentant and therefore not to be included in the visible church. (See this answer for further explanation of what that is about.)


What is (or where can I find) a summary of David J Bartholomew's views on God and Chance? I note that David J. Bartholomew has written extensively on a theological view of chance. What is a brief summary of the views he expresses on this topic in the following works or elsewhere:

God of Chance
Uncertain Belief : Is it Rational to be a Christian?
God, Chance and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways?

Additionally or alternatively, where can I find on-line reviews of these works?

David Bartholomew's view is that God uses chance.

The idea that God may have actually used chance, and still be using chance, may help to dispel the negative role it often plays in current theology. 1
As mentioned in a previous article, unpredictability is an all-pervasive part of life, and it contributes much to the excitement and interest of living. ... This may well be a mimicking of God’s ongoing creative activity on the cosmic scale. 2

God of Chance (free download)

From the Preface

The central message of God of Chance is ... that chance has to be seen as within the Providence of God. It is not something which requires the abolition of theism nor is it an illusion. We increasingly use chance as a tool in scientific work and it would surely be surprising if God had not got there before us.

Reviews

Uncertain Belief : Is it Rational to be a Christian?

Do miracles happen? Is the Bible true? What about the paranormal? Does God exist? The underpinning of belief have crumbled in a world where science sets the standard of what is true; people continue to ask these questions but there are no agreed upon answers. At the rational level, uncertainty is inevitable. Probability theory provides the tools for measuring and combining uncertainties and, thus, the key to progress. Assessing the state of the argument from a probabilistic perspective is long overdue. In Uncertain Beliefs, David J. Bartholomew examines and refutes some of the more extravagant claims, evaluates the weight of some of the quantitative evidence, and provides an answer to the fundamental question: is it rational to be a Christian?
More in-depth abstracts on each chapter here
Book Review

God, Chance and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways?

Scientific accounts of existence give chance a central role. At the smallest level, quantum theory involves uncertainty and evolution is driven by chance and necessity. These ideas do not fit easily with theology in which chance has been seen as the enemy of purpose. One option is to argue, as proponents of Intelligent Design do, that chance is not real and can be replaced by the work of a Designer. Others adhere to a deterministic theology in which God is in total control. Neither of these views, it is argued, does justice to the complexity of nature or the greatness of God. The thesis of this book is that chance is neither unreal nor non-existent but an integral part of God's creation. This view is expounded, illustrated and defended by drawing on the resources of probability theory and numerous examples from the natural and social worlds.
Book Review
Essay Review by William A. Dembski
1 http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-23#acrefore-9780199340378-e-23-div1-7
2 https://blog.oup.com/2016/10/christians-god-chance-compatibility/


Are there any ecumenical movements among lay people working to unite Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians? If leaders of Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are still far from resolving the theological issues separating these two true churches, is there any ecumenical movement at lay people level like the Taize fraternity where Protestants and Catholics live and worship together? Are there Christians from both sides who recognize the truthfulness of the other side and are longing to share the richness of these two traditions despite the opinions of their respective church hierarchies?

One such organization is Orientale Lumen.

As stated on their web site here:

  Started in 1997 in Washington, DC, these ecumenical conferences are a "grass roots" movement among lay persons and clergy to provide a forum for Christians to learn about the "light from the east." They allow Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics to meet and pray together, learn from each other's traditions, and become friends together searching for a common goal: "that they all may be one" in the One Church of Christ.

The conference speakers usually include members of the clergy, so I wouldn't call it a "ecumenical movement at lay people level", but it is an excellent conference, which addresses topics such as you suggest.