Is there a 'correct' pattern for Anglicans and/or Roman Catholics when crossing yourself? Some Anglicans 'cross themselves' at various points of an Anglican church service. It is common practice for Roman Catholics. Is there in standard Roman Catholic or Anglican catachesis / instruction any guidance as to a 'correct' motion when crossing yourself:

left-to-right or right-to-left, for example?
 the horizontal motion first, or the vertical?

For Catholics, it's using the right hand, forehead-chest-left shoulder-right shoulder.

  The Sign of the Cross  (from the Fountain of Catholic Knowledge,
  OFFICE OF CATHOLIC PUBLICATIONS, Imprimatur, 1877; and from THE
  CATECHIST, by the Very Rev. Canon Howe, Imprimatur, 1898)

  MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

  The Sign of the Cross is a sacramental if we make it with the right
  hand by touching the forehead (showing our belief in the Cross), the
  breast (showing our love of the Cross), and the shoulders (showing our
  readiness to bear the Cross). Sometimes a triple Cross is made with
  the thumb for example at the reading of the Gospel. It is made on the
  forehead, on the heart, and on the lips in order to show our readiness
  to profess the Cross.

See also the Baltimore Catechism (1064).

  Q. 1064. How do we make the sign of the cross?

  A. We make the sign of the cross by putting the right hand to the
  forehead, then on the breast, and then to the left and right
  shoulders, saying, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
  the Holy Ghost, Amen."

It is worth noting that the sign of the cross (for a Catholic) is a sacramental1.

That isn't how it was always done

The above sequence is comparatively new.  The previous tradition had lasted for over a thousand years.

  The early Church Fathers attested to the use of the sign of the cross.
  Tertullian ((De corona, 30, ~ A.D 250) described the commonness of the
  sign of the cross:  “In all our travels and movements, in all our
  coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the
  table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down,
  whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign
  of the cross”

As described by Pope Innocent III2 it includes an explanation as to what each motion signifies.  This is how the Greek Orthodox still do it: head, breast, right shoulder, left shoulder.

D.D. Emmons offers an explanation

  For more than 1,200 years most Catholics made the Sign of the Cross in
  a like manner — that is, people in the Eastern and Western Church
  touched their forehead, their breast, and their shoulders, going right
  to left, with three fingers. Before he became pope, Innocent III wrote
  in The Sacred Mystery of the Altar, “The Sign of the Cross is made
  with three fingers, because it is imprinted under invocation of the
  Trinity… so that it descends from the upper part to the lower, and
  crosses over from the right hand to the left because Christ came down
  from the heaven to the Earth and crossed over from the Jews to the
  Gentiles.”

  By the end of the Middle Ages, however, Western Catholics were making
  the Sign of the Cross using the hand in place of the fingers and
  touching the left shoulder first.  Among the sources documenting this
  method and the rationale is a 15th-century devotion used by the nuns
  of the Brigittine Monastery of Sion in Isleworth, England, which
  stated that one should begin with the head and move downward, then to
  the left side, and then to the right. The devotion supported this
  form, saying that Jesus came down from the Father (forehead), was born
  as man (breast), suffered on the Cross (left shoulder), and ascended
  into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father (right shoulder).
  This method became the standard in the Western Church. It is not clear
  why the changes took place or why they did not also take root in the
  Eastern Church, which continues using three fingers to make the Sign
  of the Cross and from right to left.

Anglicans are "a Western Church"

The Anglican confession uses the same form as the Catholics (see the origin of this practice, per Emmons).  (The source is a current website article written by an Anglican Pastor, Greg Goebel3).

  How do I make the sign?

  The hand and finger traces Christ’s cross upon one’s head, heart
  (center of chest), left shoulder and right shoulder.  In the East it
  is right, then left shoulder. In some traditions, the finger is kissed
  after making the sign, or returned to the heart.  When a priest or
  bishop is blessing the people, he makes the sign as if signing them.
  This means that rather than signing himself, he moves from their left
  to their right.

  1The characteristics of sacramentals

  1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain
  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of
  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to
  man. ... They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).

  1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the
  way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare
  us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.

2 (Innocentius III, De sacro altaris mysterio, II, xlv in Patrologia Latina 217, 825C--D.)

3  "Greg {Goebel} is the founder of Anglican Pastor and serves as editor and one of the writers. He is an Anglican Priest of the Anglican Church in North America."


Sense of humor that Jesus had Is it possible that Jesus never laughed or smiled during His public life ? Are there  verses in the Gospels which directly or indirectly bring out the sense of humor  which Jesus ought to have had ?

The evidence of Matthew and Luke could perhaps suggest that Jesus indulged in parody. For example, the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 13:19 and Matthew 13:31-32:

Luke 13:19: It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Middle eastern mustard (s. hirta) does not grow into great trees, but is for farmers a noxious weed. Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 111, believes the parable of the mustard seed is a parody of a common Jewish reference from the books of Ezekiel and Daniel, about a tiny sprig growing to become a giant "noble cedar” with roots that spread across the earth, branches reaching to heaven, fruit for all, and shelter for animals and birds. Wyler says the parable of the leaven in the flour, in the following verses (Luke 13:20-21; Matthew 13:33), appears to satirise a story (Genesis 18:6) about Sarah, who used three measures of choice flour to bake cakes for heavenly messengers visiting Abraham. The coincidence of two successive parables that seem to parody Jewish beliefs makes it quite likely that either Jesus or the source who reported his sayings had a subtle sense of humour.
In John's Gospel, Jesus sometimes tricked those who opposed him, by using double meanings that left his opponents confused. A well-known example is when John has Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born 'anothen', a Greek word with two meanings, enabling John to make Nicodemus look foolish. In Jesus' meeting with the Pharisee Nicodemus, he told him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born anothen, he can not see the kingdom of heaven". Nicodemus understood this Greek word to mean 'again'. This is one meaning it can have, but it can also mean 'from above', a fact that John's Greek-speaking readers would have understood. In this case, Jesus was enjoying himself at the expense of Nicodemus. This does not work in English, so translators have to choose whether to use 'again' or 'from above':

John 3:3 (KJV): Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:3 (NAB): Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.


How does mainstream Christianity's perception of Heaven differ from the Mormon perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom? Unless I am mistaken, it seems to me that the Mormon definition of the Terrestrial Kingdom (the second highest kingdom of glory) is essentially identical to mainstream Christianity's definition of Heaven:

It's a paradise
You can see Jesus there (just Jesus, he's the only God there)
You get to see all your deceased loved ones
You can't become a god

Mormons believe that the Terrestrial Kingdom is where Christians who do not accept the fullness of the Gospel (modern prophets, the Book of Mormon) will go after judgement:

  75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded
  by the craftiness of men.

  76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. (D&C 76:75, 76)

If this is true, then that basically means that Mormons believe all the other Christians are going exactly where they believe they are going. And Mormons simply believe in a higher heaven where you can be exalted and become a god, and that not being admitted into this higher heaven would be a type of Hell to them.

Identities of deities and other doctrines aside, after judgement, how does existence in Heaven according to mainstream Christianity, differ from the glory of the Terrestrial Kingdom?

I want the answers to focus on the day-to-day living/quality of life/level of perfection in heaven.

That's next to impossible, as there aren't any detailed (canon) claims of day-to-day activity, quality of life, etc. that could help us out here.

"What is heaven like?" is one of the great mysteries. It probably has a similar answer to "What is being alive like?": you'd have to be there to know.

Comparison is even more tricky.

"Christians say that they will be happy by 1 unit." "Mormons say citizens of the Terrestrial kingdom will be happy by 2 units." "3 units." "4 units!" "Infinity!" "Infinity + 1!"

Ostensibly, yes they are quite alike. There are many similarities as you pointed out.

Probably the biggest difference between mainstream Christian heaven and the LDS terrestial kingdom is this: mainstreams Christrians in heaven are as happy as they could ever possibly be. Those in the LDS Terrestrial kingdom aren't.


When did "tithing" come to mean "giving 10% of your gross income to the Church"? I know the word "tithe" has "tenth" built into it, and so some Christians assume that every usage of the word "tithe" in Scripture is referring to "giving 10% of your gross income to the church."  But I also know that "tithes" in the Old Testament did not refer to this at all.

They only "tithed" on food (livestock and crops); they had money (i.e. "income"), but the "tithes" did not apply to that.
The food went to the Levites, Priests, and needy people - none of whom had land of their own by which they could feed themselves.
"Tithes" were not required of everyone - only those who raised livestock or grew crops.  For example, carpenters weren't required to tithe, nor were the Priests and needy people.

Clearly these things have application today; I am not challenging the idea of providing for ministers and needy people with cheerfulness and generosity.

My question is: When did the Church begin to understand "tithing" as "giving 10% of your gross income to the Church"?  Clearly this is not what it meant in the Old Testament, and I don't see anything in the New Testament to indicate that the term was redefined by Jesus or the Apostles.

To clarify, I am not asking whether this is a good interpretation (or application, for that matter).  I am also not looking for unsupported claims about how "it has always been understood this way, even by Jesus and the Apostles."  My question is about Church History; please support your claim with references to historical records.

The Jewish Historian Alfred Edersheim seems to have done a fair bit of research on this subject. Basically, the subject is far more complex than a simple 10%, and would usually have amounted to more under Old Testament law. In fact, I am not sure I fully understand what Edersheim has explained—but that helps to convey just how complex it really was.
The basic idea of the tithe (i.e 10%) was bound up in the first fruit offerings of the land:

Two of these firstfruit offerings were public and national; viz. the first omer, on the second day of the Passover, and the wave-loaves at Pentecost. The other two kinds of ‘firstfruits’—or Reshith, ‘the first, the beginning’—were offered on the part of each family and of every individual who had possession in Israel, according to the Divine directions in Ex. 22:29; 23:19; 34:26; Numb. 15:20, 21; 18:12, 13; Deut. 18:4; and Deut. 26:2–11, where the ceremonial to be observed in the Sanctuary is also described. Authorities distinguish between the Biccurim (primitiva), or firstfruits offered in their natural state, and the Terumoth (primitae), brought not as raw products, but in a prepared state,—as flour, oil, wine, etc. The distinction is convenient, but not strictly correct, since the Terumoth also included vegetables and garden produce. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

However, these first fruits and their offerings were complex in the traditional regulations and were largely based on being actually from the Holy Land:

They must be the produce of the Holy Land itself, in which, according to tradition, were included the ancient territories of Og and Sihon, as well as that part of Syria which David had subjugated. On the other hand, both the tithes and the Terumoth were also obligatory on Jews in Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab. The Biccurim were only presented in the Temple, and belonged to the priesthood there officiating at the time, while the Terumoth might be given to any priest in any part of the land. The Mishnah holds that, as according to Deut. 8:8 only the following seven were to be regarded as the produce of the Holy Land, from them alone Biccurim were due: viz. wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. If the distance of the offerer from Jerusalem was too great, the figs and grapes might be brought in a dried state. . . .
Of course, neither tithes, nor Biccurim, nor Terumoth, were to be given of what already belonged to the Lord, nor of what was not fairly the property of a person. Thus if only the trees, but not the land in which they grew, belonged to a man, he would not give firstfruits. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

In the end, when all requirements were considered, the actual amount to be given was more than just the tithe, and would have been around 25% of the overall revenue of the community from the harvests that God caused to be enjoyed:

Thus the prescribed religious contributions of every Jewish layman at the time of the second Temple were as follows: Biccurim and Terumoth, say two per cent.; from the ‘first of the fleece,’ at least five shekels’ weight; from the ‘first of the dough,’ say four per cent.; ‘corners of the fields’ for the poor, say two per cent.; the first, or Levitical tithe, ten per cent.; the second, or festival tithe, to be used at the feasts in Jerusalem, and in the third and sixth years to be the ‘poor’s tithe,’ ten per cent.; the firstlings of all animals, either in kind or money-value; five shekels for every first-born son, provided he were the first child of his mother, and free of blemish; and the half-shekel of the Temple-tribute. Together, these amounted to certainly more than the fourth of the return which an agricultural population would have. And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. Besides these prescribed, there were, of course, all manner of voluntary offerings, pious works, and, above all, the various sacrifices which each, according to his cirumstances or piety, would bring in the Temple at Jerusalem. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

Edersheim makes it very clear that the Mosaic Laws did not apply to all income, and assumed an agricultural society, clearly dating some aspects of God's purposes for the Mosaic Law:

And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

When we look to the New Testament we can’t draw real parallels from the Old, for the intention was to support a government as well as the church.  In a sense this means that under the Old Testament, once taxes and church offerings were paid, 75% of most peoples income was left.  Of this, people could still make free will offerings.
As the original society under Moses in the desert would not have necessarily had any currency, most payments for other services were probably made with produce from the land: meats, etc. (although in some cases silver may have been in use). It is therefore somewhat natural that a tradition under the Old Testament of paying a generic 10% for the tithe on 'all that one earned' is understandable (Ref. Luke 18:12; Genesis 14:18-20), though not really arguable directly from scripture.
To answer the question more specifically by date, as it was first established within Christianity under Catholicism, I refer to a Catholic Encyclopedia that established it around 567 AD:

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.

By the "Old Law" the text means Mosaic Law. As far as the concept of gross versus net goes, this seems to be a more modern idea by hyper-fundamentalists, and I have not yet found its origin.


When did the early church begin reciting the Lord's Prayer in corporate worship? I'm reading a book on prayer, and one of the claims that the author makes is that the Lord's Prayer was not intended to be recited word-for-word in corporate worship.  Part of his argument relates to its use in the early church:

  Through the many years which the New Testament history embraces [...] we find no allusion, not even the most remote, to the prayer in question. [...] We find no evidence of its having been statedly introduced into public worship until several centuries after the death of the apostles.

Thus my question: When did the early church begin reciting the Lord's Prayer in corporate worship?

Reference: Thoughts on Public Prayer, 54

The difficulty in answering this question is that the liturgy of the early Church was largely oral in nature, and so we contain virtually no records from the early Church itself regarding what it exactly did in its own liturgy. Contrary to the author who posted the quote you use, if we have evidence of the Lord's Prayer in use even several centuries later this is a very good sign to the tradition's ancient history (and an even better sign if the Lord's Prayer is spoken about with great reverence ). It is from the late third century (more so the early fourth century) and onward that we gather most of our knowledge about the Church in the first two centuries or so. I would also add that when first and second century Church Fathers were speaking about theological matters, it is widely assumed that the common division we now have between 'liturgy' and 'personal practice' was quite less potent. For these people church wasn't a specific place they went to to partake in a fully organized procedure; it was a way of life itself. When people met, it was an embodiment of individual holy life in communion (particularly through the partaking of the Eucharist). I think it is safe to say that for these people, their faith and theological understandings were meant to be carried out in the personal life, and thus logically and presumably in the preceding liturgical life. That being said, we can now analyze the evidence for the age of the Lord's Prayer.

Didache

Perhaps the earliest mention of the Lord's prayer outside of the Gospels is found in the Didache. The didache is an early Church order, thought to be perhaps the first 'catechism' of the Church. It states the following:

  But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites (Matthew 6:16) for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray.

The Didache is thought to have been written anywhere between the mid to late first century. So we have not only references to the Lord's Prayer in Church Father teachings (which shall be revealed later) but in what Eusebius considers to be a canonical catechism of the early Church. In any case, it illustrates that the Lord's Prayer is an instituted tradition already existing within the Church. This is said because it is rather clear that the writer(s) of the Didache were referring to the idea that Christ commanded that the Church pray the Lord's prayer. This is thus not some tradition that is being instituted in light of a new principle, but rather confirmed in light of what was believed to be a preexisting commandment from the Lord himself.

Tertullian

Tertullian's apostolic work was around the time the Didache came into being, and so it is likely that his thoughts on certain matters were influenced by this writing. Tertullian shares thoughts on the Lord's Prayer, which only further confirms the Didache's stance and suggests the Prayer's grounded place in the Christian culture at the time.

  Since, however, the Lord, the Foreseer of human necessities, said separately, after delivering His Rule of Prayer, Ask, and you shall receive; and since there are petitions which are made according to the circumstances of each individual; our additional wants have the right— after beginning with the legitimate and customary prayers as a foundation, as it were— of rearing an outer superstructure of petitions, yet with remembrance of the Master's precepts.

Although here Tertullian is arguing that personal prayers can be 'superadded' to what he calls 'customary prayers,' it is the fact of the 'customary prayers' that is of interest. Tertullian acknowledges some existing custom of the Lord's Prayer (as stated in the title of the segment itself) within the liturgy or nature of how Christians at the time prayed (again, keep in mind there was little difference between the two during this time). Besides this, in the previous segments, Tertullian spends an ample amount of space going through several specific lines of the Lord's Prayer. So we see Tertullian both acknowledging the Lord's Prayer as an existing custom in the Church, and expounding on its meaning in his own terms. This suggests that the Prayer was a very meaningful tradition, and as a 'custom' likely something that was precisely liturgical.

Cyprian

Cyprian was born around 200 A.D and became the Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian, following Tertullian, supported the Lord's Prayer as well in his writings. This is particularly important for it reveals how the Church, in regards to the catechism of the didache, did not face divide in itself over a linear sequence over the doctrine of the Lord's Prayer, as so many doctrines cause.

  Let us therefore, brethren beloved, pray as God our Teacher has taught us. It is a loving and friendly prayer to beseech God with His own word, to come up to His ears in the prayer of Christ.

Here again we find the same support of what appears to be a tradition within the Church.

The Liturgy Within

I would hold that on top of the evidence we have supporting an early presence and practice of the Lord's Prayer in the body of the Church, the texts themselves suggest specifically liturgical practice of the Lord's Prayer.

Firstly, in considering the Didache, we must recognize the purpose for which it was written. The Didache was written, as stated above, as a catechism. It should be made known that the orders regarding the Lord's Prayer are directly in between and associated with baptism and the Eucharist. These two practices are undeniably liturgical in nature, so the fact that the Lord's Prayer and an explanation of it is so associated with the two Sacraments suggests that it is in fact a liturgical tradition. Beyond this, it should be stated that the purpose of the Didache is not a spiritual guide for the individual but rather a general order for the community (aka the communion of Christians, or the liturgy).

Secondly, in considering Tertullian's writings on the Lord's Prayer, we find that he considers it to be a 'customary' prayer, or a foundation on which he states all 'personal' prayers rest. This suggests that the Lord's Prayer is precisely not entirely personal by nature, but rather grounded in the general order of Christ that his Church pray like he, and through his words. The contrast Tertullian purposely makes between the Lord's Prayer and 'subadded' prayer from the individual is indicative that the Lord's Prayer is more central not only as a 'personal' prayer but as a prayer that is shared and held by all members of the Church, and thus undoubtedly expressed whenever there is communion between the said members.

Final Thoughts

If we take into account how early the Didache came into being (between the mid to late first century), how firmly this catechism was affirmed by following bishops and Church Fathers, I think we are left with a good reason to believe the Lord's Prayer was instituted in the very early Church, likely by the disciples themselves. Recall that the accounts of the Gospels tells us that Christ stated 'pray like this' to his disciples before starting the Lord's Prayer. This commandment language is similar to His institution of other sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist. I think it is unlikely that there existed a gap in which the Church didn't think the Lord's Prayer should be recited, not only personally but publicly. While we don't have many examples of liturgical practice including the Lord's Prayer during the very early Church, such is only because we don't have many written examples of liturgical practices period. Looking at surrounding texts however brings more information for the historian, and what this information tells us is that the Lord's Prayer is almost as sure in presence of the early Church as the Lord is himself. Based on the facts that we have elsewhere about the nature of liturgy, I think it is safe to say that these texts were calling for the Lord's Prayer not only in 'personal' communion but in 'public' communion. The main reason I say this is based on the details that suggest this in the texts themselves and the valid reason we have to not assume otherwise (this was stated in the introduction but not formally expounded upon). There is little reason to believe the liturgies at the time would not include (for the majority of the time at least) something so obviously paramount as the Lord's Prayer.


How do I have self confidence, self esteem and work hard if I am a true Christian? In church we learn to not lean on ourselves. We learn we can do nothing with our own power. That we must completely let go of control and let God. That everything that happens is from God and that we must be humble and let people do whatever they wish to us because it is God's will and doing.

I almost get the impression that all my OWN thoughts and actions are wrong.

That I must be a true servant to other peoples needs and that I can never say no to them, even if they are manipulative or crazy.

In addition, I leave service feeling bad to be ambitious and work hard.

How do I have self confidence, self esteem, think for myself, feel free, proud of my achievements and feel good about working hard, if I follow what is preached ?

What part of Christianity am I missing?

God expects us to use our own minds:

  Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.

Psalm 32:9

And he expects us to achieve and be proud of our accomplishments, so that we don't burden others:

  Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Galatians 6:4-5

Jesus Himself told us to use the gifts we've been given:

  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Matthew 5:16

Don't let manipulative people control you, but rather:

  Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.

Proverbs 4:23

So as I'm answering this I'm left with one important question for you: "Are you getting Biblical teaching at your church?


Scriptural basis for replacement theology? There exist groups who believe that Christians or believers of Jesus completely replaced Jews as Israel and as the chosen people, and that Jews no longer have a valid relationship with G-d, unless they become Christians.

Is such a theology prevalent within Christianity? What is the scriptural basis both for and against it?

You kind of tipped your hand by using the word ideology in your question! An unscriptural ideology is at the heart of a deficient theology regarding Israel and the Christian Church. (By Church, with a capital C, I'm referring to the universal or "holy catholic" church, which is composed of all true believers in Jesus Christ.)
There Is No Legitimate Argument For It!
The key biblical passage in this regard would have to be Romans, chapters 9-11, where Paul attempts to counteract an incorrect ideology with a correct theology. By the way, if you entertain any thoughts about Paul having slipped into ideology instead of theology, read 9:3-5.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Italicized words are original to the NASB Updated version).

What Paul is saying, in part, is there would be no Christianity without Judaism. According to Paul, Judaism is the very foundation of Christianity. Most significant, of course, is that Jesus was born a Jew!
Most Evangelical Christians I know do not subscribe to the notion that Israel is washed up, or that God has given up on Israel and subsequently turned to the church as his only light of truth in a dark world. They focus, rather, on the very expressions Paul uses to indicate the temporary nature of Israel being put on hold, so to speak. Paul uses such expressions as

". . . it is not as though the word of God has failed" (9:6)

In other words, the word of God may not have had the effect God desired, but that is not to say it will never achieve God's desired outcome.

". . . the children of promise are regarded as descendants" (9:8; notice the tense of the verb I've italicized: present--not past--tense).

Put differently, descent from Abraham, the father of faith and a nation, will on day--once more--be an advantage to those descendants who believe God.
Let's stop here. In Paul's line of reasoning, what God was doing among Israel is simply being continued today through the church until the promises God made to Abraham and Isaac, "the child of promise," are fulfilled completely.
The Christian Church as Parenthetical
Think of the "church age" as parenthetical. Not in the sense that what is inside the parentheses is unimportant or an afterthought. No, but in the sense that what came before the parentheses is going to be continued after the parentheses. Other expressions Paul uses are also of relevance:

". . . but Israel , pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law . . .. Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone" (and then Paul quotes Isaiah 8:14). Note: the italicized words are in the the NASB Updated version.

Put differently, Israel stumbled at the simplicity of simply believing in the promise of God; namely, that he was going to bless the entire earth through Abraham's seed (and Isaac's seed, and King David's seed, and so on). Israel got caught up in the rigid observance of the Law as their way of earning God's favor with works of righteousness and stumbled at the sufficiency of faith to win God's favor, which is at the heart of the biblical notion of grace (viz., God's undeserved, unmerited favor to sinners, whether Jew or Gentile).

". . . there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for 'WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED'" (10:12-13).

Another key verse is the following:

". . . God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I . . . [Paul] am an Israelite . . ." (11:1 NASB Updated).
"In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice" (ibid., v.5, original italics)
"But by their [Israel's] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make . . . [Israel] jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!" (ibid., v.12, original italics).

In other words, a time of fulfillment is coming for Israel. Again, that fulfillment comes after the parentheses of the church age.
Israel Is the Cultivated Stock; the Gentiles, A Wild Branch Grafted In
Paul also resorts to metaphor in chapter 11, talking of bread dough, trees, and branches. The Jews are the original tree root of the cultivated olive, whereas the Gentiles are the "wild" branches which were grafted into the tree when the original branches were "broken off" (vv.16-17). He then warns the Gentiles not to become arrogant. After all, the Jews came first. Just because some of their branches were broken off doesn't mean the original root can't or won't come back to life and produce more branches from the original root!
Moreover, God can just as easily break off the grafted-in branches (i.e., the Gentiles) for unbelief when they fail to lay hold of God's kindness while it is still offered to them (see vv.18-24).
A Partial and Temporary Hardening
Finally, Paul wraps up his argument by saying,

". . . a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, just as it is written [in Isaiah 59:20]."

Furthermore,

". . . the gifts and the calling of God [to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so on] are irrevocable. . . .For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" [both Gentile and Jew] (v.32).

In conclusion, God has not replaced Israel with the Christian church; rather, the Christian church was grafted in as a way of continuing what God had been doing all along with Israel (viz., seeking a people for himself who would latch on to his promises and thereby be declared righteous by God through simple faith, just as Abraham's faith was accounted unto him as righteousness (Romans 4:3 and 9), since "the just shall live by faith."


Why do we celebrate Easter only 2 days after Good Friday? I have always wondered why we celebrate Easter only two 24 hour periods since Good Friday. Throughout Scripture we see the Apostles and Paul talking about Jesus's Resurrection was three days after his crucifixion according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). I feel like I read somewhere that a day back in the 1st Century meant something different than what we believe in the 21st Century. This should be something that we are taught when we are young instead of me asking when I turn 17 in 2 months.

3 days and 3 nights

To an American with a clock, this phrase automatically makes us think of 3 entire days and nights or 3-24HR periods.  This phrase to a Jew in the 1st century and before would have meant to the 3rd day or on the 3rd day.

Look how Jesus interchanges the language:

  Matt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He
  must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief
  priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third
  day.
  Matt 12:40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights
  in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days
  and three nights in the heart of the earth.

We also have an OT reference that lets us know how a Jewish person would interpret this phrase at that period of time.

  Esther 4:15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go,
  assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not
  eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will
  fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is
  not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.”

  Esther 5:1- 5 Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on
  her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in
  front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal
  throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace. 2 When
  the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained
  favor in his sight; and the king extended to Esther the golden scepter
  which was in his hand. So Esther came near and touched the top of the
  scepter. 3 Then the king said to her, “What is troubling you, Queen
  Esther? And what is your request? Even to half of the kingdom it shall
  be given to you.” 4 Esther said, “If it pleases the king, may the king
  and Haman come this day to the banquet that I have prepared for
  him.” 5 Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly that we may do as
  Esther desires.” So the king and Haman came to the banquet which
  Esther had prepared. 6 As they drank their wine at the banquet,
  the king said to Esther, “What is your petition, for it shall be
  granted to you. And what is your request?


Can a Mormon wife be unsealed from her husband, and what is required for it? I have a question about the LDS Church sealing ordinances mentioned in this article, specifically the ordinance referred to in the first paragraph:

  While on earth, we can make sacred covenants (promises) with God in
  the holy temple through priesthood authority. Among these covenants is
  the opportunity for husbands and wives to be sealed (married for
  eternity) and their children to be sealed to them.

The question is about a situation where a woman and her daughter were sealed to her first husband (who was also the father of the daughter). While the daughter is still a preteen, the husband dies in a car accident. The woman later marries someone else.

After a couple of years in her new marriage she feels happier than in the first marriage because her first husband tended to be abusive. While her daughter is still in the early teens, she no longer wants to be sealed to the first husband and contemplates the possibility of becoming unsealed from him.

Questions

Is there a way for her to be unsealed from the first husband after he has already died?
Does unsealing from the first husband require a sealing to the second husband, or can these be done separately?
The daughter wants to be with her mother, so can she also become sealed to whomever the mother is sealed to?

The short answer to this question is, "Yes", but the process is much more complicated than civil divorce. Breaking seals on marriages are considered exceptions to the rule, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Before a woman can be sealed to another man, the sealing to her fist husband must be broken. For this to be accomplished, the woman must begin the process by meeting with her bishop and explaining to him the circumstances for why she wishes to have her sealing broken. The bishop does not have authority to break a sealing, but can direct the woman and help her through the process. After a series of interviews these sorts of things eventually go all the way up to the first presidency of the church for review and approval. They determine whether or not the woman is justified in having her sealing to her first husband broken. One of the only circumstances for which a woman may have her sealing broken to a deceased husband is if she wishes to be sealed to a new husband.

For clarity: civil marriage, and temple marriage (being sealed) are
    distinct in that a civil marriage is "Until death do they part" (for
    time), whereas a temple marriage is "For time and all eternity"
    (for eternity). A woman who is sealed to her husband--but later
    remarries due to death or civil divorce--retains her sealing to her
    first husband. If the sealing is left intact, then after death she
    is parted from her second husband and rejoined with her first.

Again, with such matters, there are no firm answers. They are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will likely have to go to the first presidency for review.


What is the support for the idea that the "angel of the Lord" is actually God? For many years, I've held the idea that every place where the phrase "an angel of the Lord" (as opposed to just a plain angel) appears, the angel is actually God taking the form of an angel. Is there any particular reason for believing this rather than just seeing the phrase as a sort of generic add-on, like "Jesus of Nazareth"?

I was raised Wesleyan, so the closer to that, the better.

Our church also teaches this.  In a recent sermon, our Pastor taught that the Angel of the Lord can be used interchangeably with Christ.  As we believe in the Trinity, this means the Angel of the Lord is also God.

The following is some (but not all) of the Scriptural evidence used to support this teaching:

From Baker's Evangelical Dictionary:

  The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate
  appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of
  the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship
  from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as
  "Wonderful, " the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah
  9:6 ( Jud 13:9-22 ). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old
  Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New
  Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah
  himself is this person.

Scriptural instances when the Angel of the Lord speaks as if He were God:

  Genesis 16:9-12 (KJV) 9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

  10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
  exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

  11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with
  child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because
  the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

  12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and
  every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of
  all his brethren.

  Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV) 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and,
  behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

  3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why
  the bush is not burnt.

  4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto
  him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said,
  Here am I.

  Judges 2:1-2 (KJV) 1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have
  brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said,
  I will never break my covenant with you.

  2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye
  shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why
  have ye done this?

(There are more, but I'll stop here.)

The Angel of the Lord also accepts worship:

  Judges 6:19-21 (KJV) 19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a
  basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him
  under the oak, and presented it.

  20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the
  unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth.
  And he did so.

  21 Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was
  in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there
  rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the
  unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the Lord departed out of his
  sight.

Also, like Christ, there are times when the Angel of the Lord is treated as distinct from God.

  Judges 13:9 (KJV) 9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field:
  but Manoah her husband was not with her.

Like Christ, the Angel has the authority to forgive sin.

  Zechariah 3:3-4 (KJV) 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

  4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying,
  Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,
  I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee
  with change of raiment.


Does the Bible support the concept of male spiritual headship? What I mean by this is a little beyond "Wives submit to your husbands."  In Joshua 7:22-25 Joshua stones and burns the entire family of Achen, including his children, after he sins by keeping back some of the loot from Jericho when God commanded it all be destroyed.  Was Joshua in sin because he did this or was this a right response?  God certainly blessed them right after this with victory over Ai.
Also Exodus 20:5-6 (NJKV) states:

...For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

On a more practical note according to a study reported in Baptist Press:

[If] a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow[.]
If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.
But if the father is first, there is a 93 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.

Does this point to a leadership of a father that goes beyond simple moral or financial and moves into the distinctively spiritual?

Yes. No. Maybe.
This is all really tied up in the idea of Federal Headship. The most obvious Scriptural example of this is Adam and Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive

This is developed a lot more in the  epistles, but the general idea is that Adam acted as a representative for all of mankind: a distinctly spiritual head. Christ of course acted as the same, working the other way.
So, the question is, to what extent does everyone after Adam carry on his spiritual federal headship?
In Genesis 22:18 God says to Moses

in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,
because you have obeyed me voice

Paul confirms this in Galatians 3:6-7

just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as
righteousness." Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons
of Abraham.

You could make similar demonstrations for prominent biblical characters such as David, or Noah. If Noah had not "by faith" (as Hebrews said) obeyed God and made the arc, his descendants would be doomed! (Mostly because they wouldn't exist)
So there seems to be a sense in which God uses the faith of a spiritual "father" (I suppose that's why we call them the patriarchs?) to direct the spiritual status of their descendants.
And of course, how can we forget the most weighty declaration of this in Exodus 20:5-6

...for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of
those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth
generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Cultural Adaptation?
I suspect (perhaps this could be asked on Judaism.SE) that this idea of federal representativeness or headship became quickly ingrained in Jewish culture. As a result, all throughout the Old Testament families are put to death because of the sins of the father. In Numbers 16, Korah's entire household. In 2 Samuel 21, 7 of Saul's sons are put to death for his unresolved sins against the Gibeonites.
It seems, then, that while this might not always be a 100%, black-and-white, specific case, that in general the father acts as the representative for the family - be it a moral, spiritual, or any other -al issue.
And now?
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to generalize this even further:

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to
live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband
is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made
holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,
but as it is, they are holy. (vs. 13-14)

Regardless of what "made holy" means, there's a couple interpretations here that might support the federal headship theory:

Paul is reassuring  his audience that, even if the father (the spiritual head) is an unbeliever, his wife makes the children holy in his stead
Both parents, whether husband or wife, contribute to the child's "holiness" and so Paul is generalizing federal headship further to both parents, not just the father.

Paedobaptists like myself would say there is definitely an element in which the parents contribute to the status of their children in the covenant community:

Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children...

So yes, there is definitely some biblical support for this idea and I (and I suspect most Evangelicals) would agree that to some extent the Father specifically (but also the mother) have a sort of "spiritual" leadership.
But no, it's not as if every father is acting as a second Adam, determining the righteousness of his children.
So depending on what exactly you mean: yes, no, maybe so


What is the status of Eunuchs now in the Church and also in the world to come? Eunuchs, who are considered to be the third gender, are also human beings. Some eunuchs are made by other human beings, particularly in the ancient times. Some people voluntarily become eunuchs as an expression of their devotion to their faith or religion. However, some people are born eunuchs from their mothers' wombs [Matt.19:12]. These are obviously created by God Himself.
What is the protestant Christianity's position on the status of Eunuchs in the church? What is the protestant Christianity theological understanding with regard to the status and pleasures Eunuchs get in Heaven if they are faithful believers in this life?

What was an Ancient Ivri (Hebrew) Fetsua (Eunuch)? - Emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) man.
Deuteronomy 23:2 [MT] "He shall Not (לֹֽא) Enter (יָבֹ֧א) Who is emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) by crushing (דַּכָּ֛א) or cutting (וּכְר֥וּת) Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה) into-Assembly (בִּקְהַ֥ל) of YHVH (יְהֹוָֽה)."

Becoming a Hebrew "Fetsua" (פְצֽוּעַ) or damaging male Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה)** was prohibited by Moshe (משֶׁה֙) in [Chapter 23, verse 2] in the scroll of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) known by English translations as the book of "Deuteronomy". The English KJV, NIV, NASB translations of the Hebrew Torah change the verse-number & word-order of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) or "Deuteronomy".

Deuteronomy 23:1 [NASB] :"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [NIV] :"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [KJV] :
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Why does the Law of Moshe (Moses) get reversed by Yeshua (Jesus) in Matthew 19:12-14 ? - Perhaps Jesus regarded a spiritual union between humans which creates only a philosophical understanding of God > greater than the physical union between humans which provides a tangible understanding of God in the creation of children.
Matthew 19:12-14 [NASB] :
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Matthew 19:12-14 [NIV]
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Perhaps Jesus understood the ultimate loss of children by emasculated men took away worldly joy & blessings, causing Eunuchs to inherit a spiritual joy & blessing in the kingdom of heaven.
Acts 8:27-39 offers righteous Eunuchs hope in their salvation / spiritual union with the Assembly of YHVH.
How is a Eunuch viewed in Protestantism?

In Methodism, John Wesley's Commentary : "The eunuch — Who is here joined with the stranger, because he was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:1. Under these two instances he understands all those, who either by birth, or by any ceremonial pollution, were excluded from church privileges, and so he throws open the door to all true believers." [https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=wes&b=23&c=56]


Why is Jesus' genealogy traced through Joseph? Why is Jesus' genealogy in Matthew and Luke traced back to David through Joseph if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit?

First of all, Joseph was not Jesus biological father in any understanding since Mary conceived by a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit before she was joined to Joseph and the text tells us they refrained from intercourse until after Jesus birth.

However in the eyes of the law of the time, Joseph was the father. More than just a legal guardian, by later taking Mary as his wife, he also claimed Jesus as his son. This gave him a standing in relation to the child that -in the eyes of the Jews at least- must be accounted for. The fact that he was himself of the line of David would put many doubts about the validity of Jesus' claims to rest. The excuse that there was no blood relation would have been overshadowed by the fact that he was the lawful father and not himself of the prophesied linage.

Knowing that Joseph was himself of the line of David makes Jesus the rightful legal heir to the throne of David even though he wasn't biologically related to his earthly father.

Secondly, there is actually a huge difference between the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. If you read them, there are only a couple names in common from David to Jesus. One possibility for this is that Joseph had two fathers: one legal and one biological through a Levirate marriage (where the brother of a man with no offspring would step in to provide one).

However the other idea that many scholars agree on is that the record found in Luke is actually a trace of Mary's family tree. It wasn't common to trace the maternal side, but then again the virgin birth was hardly a normal occurrence! This would mean we have both the paternal and maternal genealogies and all the bases are covered.


What evidence is there that Jesus died on the cross? Inspired by How long was Jesus in the tomb?, the question could be reasonably raised "if Jesus was only in the tomb for a day and a half, can we be sure that he really died, or were the witnesses mistaken?"

I'm looking not simply for biblical assertions by the biblical authors that Jesus died on the cross, but more objective facts about what happened. For example, if he got cold and blue, or if rigor mortis set in, or if the tomb began to smell, this type of data would be supporting evidence of his death.

According to this article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Jesus died from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. The shock, caused by his scourging, was made apparent by his inability to carry the cross member. When the spear pierced Jesus' side, both blood and water were said to come out of the wound. The latter is explained by pleural and pericardian effusions. Furthermore, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, which suggests that there was a "catastrophic terminal event" such as a cardiac rupture.


Black and white races are equal - in the New Testament? To me, it's simple that black and equal races are equal. But since the recently, black people had a lower status than white people and also suffered from discrimination as everybody knows, and I'm wondering, because the Christianity exists around 2000 years, and these issues were among white Christians, so I'm wondering maybe what we think today, wasn't simply understood to people in past, therefore I'm looking for proofs/verses from the New Testament that support or oppose the idea that black and white people are equal in their rights etc.

As far as the Jews were/are concerned, the most significant difference between differing people groups in the Bible was/is the distinction between Jews and Gentiles.  All other distinctions, such as wealth, colour of skin, etc, are as nothing compared to this difference.  This was the chief difference in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, in that Jew and Gentile are brought together as equals in the Gospel Age it follows that all other differences are also to be treated as irrelevent.
So in Ephesians we are told that the Gentiles are "fellowheirs, and of the same body", (Eph 3:6).  "Fellow" here means "equal": the Gentiles are equally heirs along with the Jews.
The Apostle continues into the next chapter, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all", (Eph 4:4-6).
Seeing we all who are in Christ have "one ... Father of all" and "one baptism" it follows there is equality between all who are in Christ, irrespective of their roots.
And I am minded to add
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28); and
"where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." (Col 3:11).
Also, everyone who repents and believes in Christ "puts on Christ" (Romans 13:14), they put on the righteousness of Christ, like a piece of clothing.  God the Father now sees the believer as having the complete righteousness of His own Son: this righteousness, being not ours but His Son's, is the same measure of righteousness for all believers: of course it must be, because it is precisely the same righteousness, being Christ's.  All then are equally righteous.
Finally, early in John's Gospel we have our Lord speaking to two very opposite kinds of sinners:
The first is Nicodemus.  This sinner is:
A man.  A Jew.  A member of the Sanhedrin.  Reputed as very knowledgeable in the Bible that at that time existed, viz the Old Testament.  A teacher of religion. Probably rich.  Held in high regard by the Jewish people.  But all these advantages are no good to him. They will not bring him into a right standing before God, he will still spend eternity in the flames of hell unless something happens.  Jesus says he "must be born again" (John 3:7). He needs to be born of the Spirit of God to change him and make him a new creature.
The second is the woman of Samaria.  This sinner is:
A woman. A Gentile. A member of the Samaritan nation and religion which was despised by the Jews.  A follower of false religion.  She is poor.  She is held in low esteem even by the despised Samaritans because she is living with a man who is not her husband.  But all these disadvantages will be no hindrance to her becoming a child of God: all she needs to do is see her spiritual need and ask the right person for the living water.
The point I am wanting to make is that the opposite from the outwardly moral Nicodemus is not a black person or any other kind of person: the opposite is a person of low reputation because of her lifestyle which blatantly disregards accepted moral standards.
Despite their obvious outward differences these two sinners have precisely the same need: faith in Christ and in his taking their punishment for their sins at the cross; they both need the Holy Spirit to give them the new birth; they both need a new start in life.  The human heart is a deep well.  They do not need to tie a few apples onto the thorn bush of their souls to make them appear outwardly fruitful.  God needs to change them and us deep within our souls by giving us that living water that bursts out into a changed life.
The only important difference between people is if we are born again of the Spirit.  If we have the Spirit of Christ then we are spiritually minded and at peace with God; if we have not the Spirit then we are carnally minded and are at enmity against God,
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:6-9).
There is no halfway house here: you are either born again and pleasing to God, or you have not the Spirit of Christ and are at enmity against God.  This is the only truly important difference.
Outward differences are immaterial.  The human heart is the same the world over.
Faith in Christ, being born again, is the only difference that really counts.


How is ignoring clear Biblical instructions in Leviticus justified? Leviticus 11:7-8

  And the pig, though it has a split hood completely divided, does not
  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or
  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

  Leviticus 11:11-12

  And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat ad you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

  Leviticus 11:19

  Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters/squid or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool.

If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow?
Note: I must credit the excellent book "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken

The typical reformed answer on this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that we are now living under the New Covenant.
Lets look at this specifically point by point.
Leviticus 11:7-8 and Leviticus 11:11-12 have been fulfilled by by Acts 11:6-9

6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
8“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

as far as Leviticus 11:19 is concerned this is pretty much the same line of thinking as above, its less explicit, but its essentially the same thing.


Can a communion host be made differently according to Catholicism? The current host is made of wheat and water and baked. Now during the pandemic we are facing new challenges that requires people receive the Eucharist in the hand which creates a high risk of letting the particles fall on the ground or stay on people's hand. This causes a sacrilege.
It seems we will never be able to receive on the tongue. I'm sure this practice will be pushed going forward.
What if we make hosts wrapped in clear edible coating that would prevent crumbling and also people from touching the bread? Many pills are made this way.
What is the Catholic Church teaching on this addition to communion host? There would be zero particles falling on the ground and people could recieve on the hand.

Can a communion host be made differently?

The valid material of the Eucharistic host is unadulterated wheat reduced to flour, diluted with natural water, and baked with fire. Host (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The shape of a communion host may be different, but generally speaking hosts in the Latin Rite are round. Hosts in many Eastern Rite Churches are cubic in shape.
What if we make hosts wrapped in clear edible coating that would prevent crumbling and also people from touching the bread?
The short answer to this is that it would be invalid matter. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on this matter.

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools. (no. 48)

Thus anything more than wheat and water added to the confection of a communion host would constitute invalid matter.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say about communion hosts:

By reason of the sign, it is required that the material for the Eucharistic Celebration truly have the appearance of food. Therefore, it is desirable that the Eucharistic Bread, even though unleavened and made in the traditional form, be fashioned in such a way that the Priest at Mass with the people is truly able to break it into parts and distribute these to at least some of the faithful. However, small hosts are not at all excluded when the large number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral reasons call for them. (no. 321)

It is outside the domain of this question to appease the need to receive communion on the hand, one way or another. But I will simply add these two statements:

In a letter to The Tablet this week the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw, observed that it was not permitted to distribute the host on the hand at the Extraordinary Form, and that in parishes where this was made mandatory, only the priest would consume. He also said that there was no objective medical foundation for suspending reception on the tongue.
Professor Jim McManus, Director of Public Health, who has advised the Bishops’ Conference on their response, told The Tablet: “The guidance is consistent with the fact that coronavirus is spread through saliva. That is backed up by studies which show that the virus has been consistently detected in the saliva of 91.7 per cent of patients.” - Coronavirus dispute over communion on the tongue

Coronavirus Note: My parish still allows communion on the tongue! Many dioceses still allow it. There is no proof that either practice is more dangerous than the other during this pandemic. Our bishop requires all priests to immediately sanitize their hands if they knowingly came into contact with someone’s tongue or lips while distributing Holy Communion. Each priest has a washing station about two (2) meters from the place where he is distributing communion. This will not go back to normal anytime soon, and even possibly during our lifetime!
Just as the priest takes the paten off the chalice, in order to expose the wine when he say the words of consecration, so to the hosts must be exposed when the priest says the words of consecration over them.
A priest saying the Mass with hosts which are covered by some form of clear edible coating implies that he is praying directly over another substance than simply natural bread. This implies very serious invalid matter! If referred to Rome, it would without a doubt receive a negative judgement.
The following is exact how I was taught in the seminary:
Are microscopic particles which fall from the Host still the Eucharist?

How small is too small?
Still, we must emphasize that some persons fall into serious confusion on this point. Because every particle of the consecrated Host is surely Jesus, they think that even every microscopic particle which falls from the Host is also Jesus – but in this, they err.
A piece of the Host which is visible to the human eye (under usual conditions and without assistance) as what appears to be a piece of bread, is surely Jesus. However, those particles which are so small as to be invisible to the human eye, or to be indistinguishable from a particle of dust – these cannot any longer be the Eucharist.
The Church teaches that the Eucharistic Presence remains “as long as the Eucharist species subsist”. This means that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, so long as the Eucharist retains the accidental properties of bread and wine. Hence, if a Host is dissolved in water (as is done when the Host has become putrefied, as through vomiting after the reception of Communion), upon being dissolved it is not longer the Eucharist. Likewise, the Precious Blood, when the Chalice is purified with water (and wine), is no longer the Eucharist.
The same must hold true for those particles which are so small as to be unrecognizable as “bread”. If the fragment is so small as to appear to be dust or a speck of some other substance, rather than a “crumb” of bread, it can no longer be the Eucharist. Likewise, those microscopic particles which fall from the Host are not the Eucharist, since they clearly do not retain the appearance of bread.
Excessive scrupulosity about such things will only cause the true faith to be ridiculed. Indeed, in this case, the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent are most helpful. Warning priests to dissuade the people from a vain curiosity into such mysteries, the Roman Catechism states:
“No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread. Indeed, discussions of this kind should scarcely ever be entered upon.
“Should Christian charity, however, require a departure from this rule, the pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God.”


What significance do the church fathers attribute to Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross of Christ? Simon of Cyrene is mentioned by name as carrying the cross for Christ in the synoptic Gospels. Are there writings of early Church fathers (ante-Nicene fathers or post-Nicene up to, let's say, 600 AD) who speak to the theological meaning of this event and if so, what theological significance do they give it?

From Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea, an extract of Origen's comments (There are a number of sites hosting English Translations of the Catena Aurea on the internet.  Here is one such):

  Origen: Or, as they went out, they laid hold of Simon, but when they drew near
  to the place in which they would crucify Him, they laid the cross upon
  Him that He might bear it. Simon obtained not this office by chance,
  but was brought to the spot by God's providence, that he might be
  found worthy of mention in the Scriptures of the Gospel, and of the
  ministry of the cross of Christ. And it was not only meet that the
  Saviour should carry His cross, but meet also that we should take part
  therein, filling a carriage so beneficial to us. Yet would it not have
  so profited us to take it on us, as we have profited by His taking it
  upon Himself.

Also in the Catena Aurea, commentary from Venerable Bede (who translated a significant amount of the Church Fathers' writings in his day):

  Bede: Or, since this Simon is not called a man a Jerusalem, but a
  Cyrenian, (for Cyrene is a city in Libya,) fitly is he taken to mean
  the nations of the Gentiles, which were once foreigners and strangers
  to the covenants, but now by obedience are heirs of God, and joint
  heirs with Christ. Whence also Simon is fitly interpreted ‘obedient’,
  and Cyrene ‘an heir’. But he is said to come from a country place, for
  a country place is called ‘pagos’ in Greek, wherefore those whom we
  see to be aliens from the city of God, we call pagans. Simon then
  coming out from the country carries the cross after Jesus, when the
  Gentile nations leaving pagan rights embrace obediently the footsteps
  of our Lord’s Passion.

While not exhaustive, this is a sampling of some of the Church Fathers' comments on Simon of Cyrene.  These point to Simon's symbolic position as an example to believers to "pick up your cross and follow me."


What is the biblical argument against the claim that Jesus is just "a god", but not "God Almighty"? As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is a god, but not God Almighty.  However, this goes against the teaching of the majority of Christian denominations and certainly evangelical denominations.

What, then, is the biblical basis for the claim the Jesus is not merely a god, but is, in fact, God Almighty?

I love Narnian's answer indicating that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Here are a few other proofs to supplement that answer.

1. There is only one God

  "I am He, And there is no god besides Me" -Deuteronomy 32:39

  “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And My servant whom I have chosen,
  So that you may know and believe Me
  And understand that I am He.
  Before Me there was no God formed,
  And there will be none after Me." -Isaiah 43:10

  Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." -Isaiah 44:6

  “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." -Isaiah 45:5

  "there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." -Isaiah 45:21

God went to great lengths to clarify that there was only one God in all of existence. I see two possibilities:

There is only one God in all of existence, or
God just wants everyone to believe that there is only one God in all of existence! (I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course; God is not a deceiver; there is indeed only one God.)

Either way it seems extremely foolish to teach anything other than "there is only one God in all of existence."

2. God Almighty: Lord: Savior: Jesus

The verses just cited also indicate that the one and only God is the Lord and Savior, but here is further support:

  when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,“I am God Almighty" -Genesis 17:1

  “I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me." -Isaiah 43:11

  I have been the Lord your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me. -Hosea 13:4

Here we see that God Almighty is the Lord, who is the only Savior. (Note: A number of passages, including Nehemiah 9 prove that the same "God" is being referenced in both of these passages.)

  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus -Titus 2:11-13

  grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. -2 Pet. 3:18

Our great Lord, God, and Savior is Jesus. If Jesus is not God Almighty, these passages would be blasphemous.

3. The blood of God

  Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. -Acts 20:28

Given that there is only one God, and given that He purchased the church with His own blood, and given that it was Jesus' blood, we have yet another proof that Jesus is that one true God.


What are the main beliefs/themes of the Prosperity Gospel and which are the current prominent groups and their pastors? What are the main beliefs/themes of the Prosperity Gospel?

And which are the current prominent groups and their pastors?

The main premise of the prosperity doctrine is that the believer is in total control of his life and the wealth and health that he has or doesn't have is in direct correlation to the words he speaks. The main proponents of this doctrine are leaders such as: Kenneth Hagan Jr; Kenneth Copeland; Joel Osteen; Norvel Hayes; Derrick Prince...


In Genesis 18, does Jesus meet with Abraham? In Genesis 18, the Lord is mentioned several times. Along with 2 angels, he meets with Abraham. Is the Bible speaking of Jesus?

It does not explicitly state such, but it is possible to logically deduce it.

Jesus himself said that no one had ever seen the Father (John 6:46). In addition, Jesus said, "Before Avraham was, I am" (John 8:58).

Technically, however, Avraham wouldn't have seen Yeshu'a of Nazareth, the incarnate Word of God. Rather, he would have seen the pre-incarnate Word. (Of course, I'd say most Christians don't find it necessary to make such a distinction.)

Many early Church fathers believed that Avraham and the other patriarchs saw God the Son when they are said to have seen God.

In Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LVI §1, Justin Martyr wrote,

  Therefore, Moshe, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that he who appeared to Avraham by the oak in Mamre simultaneously with the two angels in his company, is God, having been sent for the judgment upon Sedom by Another who eternally dwells in the supercelestial places, and never appears, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe is the Maker and Father of all things.

Roberts-Donaldson English Translation

  Μωυσῆς οὖν, ὁ μακάριος καὶ πιστὸς θεράπων θεοῦ, μηνύων ὅτι ὁ ὀφθεὶς τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῆ θεὸς σὺν τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν Σοδόμων κρίσιν πεμφθεῖσι δύο ἀγγέλοις ὑπὸ ἄλλου, τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὑπερουρανίοις ἀεὶ μένοντος καὶ οὐδενὶ ὀφθέντος ἢ ὁμιλήσαντος δι' ἑαυτοῦ ποτε, ὃν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων καὶ πατέρα νοοῦμεν.

Greek Text

Two persons, both God, one who is sent (the Son), and the other who sends (the Father).


What did Augustine mean by "The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed."? I've read this quote by Augustine several times over the years. Can you give me any examples of both parts of the quote to clarify it for me?

The Old Testament points forward to the coming of the promised Redeemer, the Serpent-crusher of Genesis, the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Son of David, the Messiah of Daniel, and the Humble King of Zechariah.

Four hundred years after God spoke to the prophet Malachi, God spoke again. The message was that the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 was soon to be fulfilled, that a prophet was to prepare the way for the Lord. The Messiah was on His way. That prophet was John the Baptist.

The New Testament Gospels reveal the promised Messiah, the Christ, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The New Testament is only completely understood in the light of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. In this way the promises contained in the Old Testament are revealed in the New Testament.


Shouldn't Mary’s genealogy be Jesus' family history? Matthew 1:1-17 provides a genealogy of Jesus, traced back to Abraham:

  The Family History of Jesus the Messiah:
  .  .  .
  Abraham was the father of Isaac
  .  .  .
  Matthan was the father of Jacob.
  Jacob was the father of Joseph.
  Joseph was the husband of Mary,
  and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah. (from Matthew 1:1-2, 15-16, ERV)

However, next it says that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus: that Jesus was born of the seed of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph's seed:

  This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.) (Matthew 1:18, ERV)

And:

  When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord's angel told him to do. He married Mary. But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25, ERV)

How is Matthew 1:1-17 the family history of Jesus?

As far as any family lines were involved in Jesus' birth as a human, shouldn't Mary's genealogy be Jesus' family history? (I truly don't get this.)

There are some debates about this because these genealogies do not have every name along the branches but certain representative names. Most sources I have encountered think Matthew proves Christ was legally entitled to the throne of David as a legal ancestor to David through his father by law.  Luke on the other hand traces the  the physical lineage through Mary, who also was a descendent of David.

In any case as far as I can tell, although we have lost all the genealogical records when Jerusalem was destroyed, these records did not seem to cause any controversy among the early christians but effectively added further proof of the legitimate claims that Jesus was the Messiah.  To those who knew about the genealogies at the time this was important. For us we can only take that 'battle won' as historical proof.  Furthermore, with these records now lost no new Messiah can claim to have the correct genealogical record. Jesus was the Messiah, or there never was such a thing - case closed.


In 1943, the Russian Orthodox Church permitted the women's name Svetlana. Was it made specifically for Stalin's daughter? Russian Wikipedia says the name "Svetlana" was invented in 19th century by a poet Alexander Vostokov. But some people also pointed out that Svetlana is Russian equivalent of Photini, the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the well. These claims seem controversial. If the name was invented in 19th century, how did the Russian Orthodox Church call the Samaritan woman prior to this?

It is ok for Russian Church, historically some names, which we can find in ROC calendary, for example: Вѣра (Věra), Надѣжда (Naděžda), Любовь (Ljubovj), Боголѣпъ (Bogolěp), have an other view of their origin names, for those names they are Greek ones: Elpis, Pistis, Agapi, Theoprepios. At the time of Rus Baptial time the greek names yet used in their original view, it can be observed, for example, in cathedral of Sofia Kievan. And the reason of view transformation is that the slavic forms of the names, keeping their meaning, are more understandable for the people. The similar one yet name is the Leont, which becomes Лев (Lev).
There is the name pair, which form migrated from slavic to gree view. That is name Злата (Zlata), which became in Greek calendary as Chrisi. The name has appeared in calendary by the martys Zlata Moglenska.
So when we are seeing to the name of Свѣтлана (Světlana), the approach of appearing and using the name Fotini, was that, Wikipedia says that the name was blessed by the Synod of ROC in 1943. But I have not found confirmations of that point of view in the deeds of that Synod. And my point of view is the next. When at the end of XX century many women with the name of Světlana went to the Church, and the question on how to baptise them had arisen. So the church popes and bishops, which know the languages and tradition of namegiving in Church, just bless the equality of the names Světlana and Fotini by the meaning. Of course this reason can be applied to the time of Synod 1943.


What does the LDS Church (Mormon) teach about marriage and polygamy in the afterlife? I have heard or read something that the LDS church teaches that there will be marriage and even polygamy in the after life for people who are good Mormons.  Is this available for all people are just a few?  And what are the specific teachings about this?

Preparing for Exaltation Teachers Manual - Lesson 41: Eternal Marriage

  Explain that in the temple, through the power of the priesthood, Chris and her husband could be married for eternity, not just until death. Their children would then be “born in the covenant,” which means that they could be sealed together as a family forever.

If you are married in an LDS temple, for time and all eternity, and you reach the highest of the three degrees of glory after death, the celestial kingdom, and your wife and children reach the celestial kingdom, your marriage and your family is yours forever.

So no, eternal marriage and family are not for everybody.

If a man marries more than one woman while on earth, because of the first wife's death, then he will be married to both women in the celestial kingdom.

Women who make it to the celestial kingdom because of their faithfulness, and whose husbands don't make it to the celestial kingdom, because of unfaithfulness, are eligible to marry a different, faithful husband in the celestial kingdom.

Edited to add answers to the questions in Narnian's comment:

  Can you expand on the case where one woman would marry multiple men, because of death? Since she was married to multiple men, whose wife in the afterlife is she?

The woman would be the wife of the earliest celestially worthy husband.

  Also, if there happen to be more men than women in the highest degree of glory, would a woman have multiple husbands?

No.  There would be men who don't have celestial wives.


Why do some translations render Genesis 3:8 with "the voice of the Lord" while others don't? Is it a reference to Jesus? Genesis 3:8, depending on the translation, says one of two things with regards to what Adam and Eve heard:

They heard "the voice of the Lord" walking in the garden

or

The sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden.

It seems that in example one, the translations are intending to mean that the actual voice of the Lord God was walking in the garden, that is, had feet. In the second group, it seems they are stating simply that the Lord could be heard walking in the garden. Two very distinct interpretations.

KJV

  “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.”

Word English Bible

  They heard the voice of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool
  of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence
  of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.

Now, compare that to:

NIV

  Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was
  walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the
  LORD God among the trees of the garden.

ESV

  And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the
  cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Is it possible that some translations are referencing the Memra of the Lord (as seen in the Aramaic Targum)? http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
The Memra is known as the voice of the Lord, the glory of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, etc. Some, in fact, connect the Memra with Jesus Christ. Jesus, of course, being called the logos or the word of God.

So, are there any traditions, commentaries, church fathers, etc., that hold that, specifically, the individual walking in the garden in Genesis 3:8 was Jesus and not God the Father?

There is one commentary that I am familiar which does in fact purport that is a reference to the preincarnate Jesus; that is the commentary on the whole Bible by David Guzik. I will inset it here that you do not have to look it up.

  And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

  a. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: Adam and Eve knew that when they heard the Lord coming, He would want to be with them. This was how the Lord had fellowship with Adam and Eve, in a very natural, close, intimate way.

  i. Leupold on walking in the garden in the cool of the day: "The almost casual way in which this is remarked indicates that this did not occur for the first time just then . . . There is extreme likelihood that the Almighty assumed some form analogous to the human form which was made in His image."

  ii. We can assume this is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, appearing to Adam and Eve before His incarnation and birth at Bethlehem, because of God the Father it is said, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (Joh. 1:18), and no man has ever seen God in the Person of the Father. (1Ti. 6:16)

One of the niceties of Guzik is that he backs up his assertions with Scripture. That of course does not mean that those assertions are true unless you ascribe to the concept that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. Which would necessitate that all Scripture even remotely associated with this assertion be studied in depth, and even then many would not draw the same conclusion.

Hope this helps.


Are these assertions about Christ correct? I heard Fr. Rick Walsh say in this excerpt: "we are Christ", "Christ is a woman", "Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" and "in Christ I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" (link to the whole homily)
But I only have heard the statements: we belong to Christ, we are of Christ or we are in Christ. And that Christ is our new identity.
Are these conclusions in the homily correct?

No, the conclusions are not correct. The line of reasoning underlying this homily amounts to a conflation of metaphors.

We are Christ

This one is tolerably permissible. It's a truncation of "We are the body of Christ" (e.g "Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member." 1 Corinthians 12:27). This would have to be understood as all baptized Christians belong to the one body ( the Church) of which Christ is the head.

Christ is a woman
Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

These are not only incorrect but by Catholicism they would be considered blasphemous and heretical. The name Christ refers to the Hypostatic Union of the Word of God and the man. Christ, as a man, was male ("And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb." Luke 2:21). Catholicism also is clear that humans are born either as male or female; there is no metaphysical possibility of being born in a body of the wrong sex and thus it would be heretical to ascribe such a state to the God-man.
For example, Genesis 1:26-27 says "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." The Church has understood this to mean that an individual human has a spiritual soul and is created by God as male or female.
The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) condemned the position that "the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body" (DH 902 as cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pg. 107). The "form" of the human body is in contrast to the Platonic and Cartesian idea of an external union like a pilot with a ship. While Catholic theologians are undecided on whether the soul itself is male or female, it remains impossible for the form (potential) and body (actual) to differ in an essential quality and thus the question is if the soul isn't the source of the other sex, what is? Ultimately, there is no part of the human person where that attribute could originate as a result of the direction creation of God.

in Christ I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

(and his similar statements around racial and gender categories)
These are incorrect but bordering on nonsensical. These seem to derive from taking statements like "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) in a more than literal way. The context both here and for the similar line in Colossians 3:21 is not that those categories don't exist anymore or that by belonging to Christ you assume those categories from others who belong to Christ, but rather that all people regardless of those categories can be redeemed from their sins and saved.


Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church? I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide:

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)
  Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%?  What was the early church's view on tithing?

The word tithe itself comes from the Old English teogoþa, meaning "tenth" - so technically, tithing is the giving of a tenth by definition. But of course that's not what you're asking!

The idea of giving a tenth comes from the Old Testament:

Leviticus 27:30-33 (MSG):

  "A tenth of the land's produce, whether grain from the ground or fruit
  from the trees, is God's. It is holy to God. If a man buys back any of
  the tenth he has given, he must add twenty percent to it. A tenth of
  the entire herd and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the
  shepherd's rod, is holy to God. He is not permitted to pick out the
  good from the bad or make a substitution. If he dishonestly makes a
  substitution, both animals, the original and the substitute, become
  the possession of the Sanctuary and cannot be redeemed."

Deuteronomy 14:22-29:

  Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce
  which grows in your fields year after year. Bring this into the
  Presence of God, your God, at the place he designates for worship and
  there eat the tithe from your grain, wine, and oil and the firstborn
  from your herds and flocks. In this way you will learn to live in deep
  reverence before God, your God, as long as you live. But if the place
  God, your God, designates for worship is too far away and you can't
  carry your tithe that far, God, your God, will still bless you:
  exchange your tithe for money and take the money to the place God,
  your God, has chosen to be worshiped. Use the money to buy anything
  you want: cattle, sheep, wine, or beer—anything that looks good to
  you. You and your family can then feast in the Presence of God, your
  God, and have a good time.

  Meanwhile, don't forget to take good care of the Levites who live
  in your towns; they won't get any property or inheritance of their own
  as you will.

  At the end of every third year, gather the tithe from all your
  produce of that year and put it aside in storage. Keep it in reserve
  for the Levite who won't get any property or inheritance as you will,
  and for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow who live in your
  neighborhood. That way they'll have plenty to eat and God, your God,
  will bless you in all your work.

But, as you rightly say, in the New Testament we are instructed to give what we can, or to give whatever we feel is the right amount. Working out what that right amount is, is of course different for each person and therefore many have sought guidance on what the correct amount should be.

The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don't just give an instruction but give some reasoning too; by giving ten per cent of everything in worship to God, we still have enough left over to live comfortably on.

When we look at Jesus' teaching on giving, he calls us to give much more than 10 per cent:

Matthew 19:21 (MSG)

  "If you want to give it all you've got," Jesus replied, "go sell your
  possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be
  in heaven. Then come follow me."

Mark 12:40-42 (MSG)

  Sitting across from the offering box, he was observing how the crowd
  tossed money in for the collection. Many of the rich were making large
  contributions. One poor widow came up and put in two small coins—a
  measly two cents. Jesus called his disciples over and said, "The truth
  is that this poor widow gave more to the collection than all the
  others put together. All the others gave what they'll never miss; she
  gave extravagantly what she couldn't afford—she gave her all."

On that basis, we might view ten per cent as the minimum we should be giving. The church I attend (a "New Church") teaches that we should give what we feel is the right amount, 2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates - but as a guideline 10% should be a starting point. (My church also practices what it preaches - 30% of income is given away to other projects and charities).