What is the Catholic point of view towards animals? The Bible says in Genesis 9:3

  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Nowadays it is consider politically incorrect to defend the killing of animals even when its purpose is to feed us. Some people even think it is "bad" from us to kill an animal to eat it.

Many people complain about the way animals are treated before they are killed, like if they were "things" or some kind of "industrial" machinery.
They compare them with human beings sometimes and try to show how bad it is kill another animal, as if we were just animals as well, at the same level as them.

According to Catholicism, what should be our attitude be towards animals? Should we consider them only as "things god put on earth for us to use"? Or should we show some kind of respect to them in the way they are treated / killed ?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has useful information on how we should treat the animals.

  [2416] Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his
  providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him
  glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness
  with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri
  treated animals.

  [2417] God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created
  in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food
  and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and
  leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a
  morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and
  contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

  [2418] It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
  needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should
  as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals;
  one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

We can also find some verses  from the Bible which seem to indicate that we should show kindness to animals.

  The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel.
  (Proverbs 12:10, NLT)

  Do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the same day.
  (Leviticus 22:28, NIV)

  The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey
  these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is
  a reckless one before me. (Numbers 22:32, NIV)

  Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. (Deuteronomy
  25:4, NIV)

  Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. (Deuteronomy 14:21,
  NIV)


Chimera Image on my leather jacket? I have a leather jacket that just picked up from a girl who was selling it and I didn’t notice that it had a Chimera on its back.
Truthfully, the image disturbs me a bit. I don’t want to curse my household neither my family by keeping it.
It has a lion head with a goat’s body and a serpent head at the end of its tail. I know the image of the serpent represents Satan & goats could represent unbelievers & maybe the lion could represent the enemy roaring like a lion. Please help me understand this further.
Are there any Christian traditions on this Chimerical imagery to indicate if it represents something particularly un Christian, or if it is linked to the occult?

The Chimera is of pagan origins, but the interpretation as to what it may symbolize in a Christian perspective is an open question.

The mythological Chimera is a terrifying creature that features a fire-breathing lion’s head attached to a goat's body and ending in a serpent tail. There are varying versions of what a Chimera actually looks like with some iterations giving the creature three heads—a lion, a goat, and a dragon—among other interesting interpretations. According to Greek mythology, the Chimera is the offspring of the monster Typhoeus and his partner, Echidna, who was half-woman half-snake.
In scientific terms, a chimera is an organism with two or more genotypes; a fetus that has absorbed a deceased twin, for instance, is a chimera. Some believe that the chimera is actually a personification of Mt. Chimera, a long-gone mountain that was always on fire, in Turkey. Based on its gnarly anatomy and fire-breathing abilities the Chimera sits in the top three on our list. - Chimera

With the origins of the Chimera out of the way, there seems no biblical basis, or occultist basis for this mythical beast.

Chimera, in Greek mythology, a fire-breathing female monster resembling a lion in the forepart, a goat in the middle, and a dragon behind. She devastated Caria and Lycia until she was slain by Bellerophon. In art the Chimera is usually represented as a lion with a goat’s head in the middle of its back and with a tail that ends in a snake’s head. This matches the description found in Hesiod’s Theogony (7th century BC). The word is now used generally to denote a fantastic idea or figment of the imagination.

Nevertheless, Dragons sometimes symbolize the Devil in the Scriptures and in Christian art. So one could easily see a relationship in the imagery of the Chimera to symbolize a dragon and thus Satan, but I have found no real evidence of this.
Christians have for many centuries employed ancient mythological creatures in Christian art and imagery.

By A.D. 200, Tertullian called the unicorn a symbol of Christ. Ambrose, Jerome, and Basil agreed. The late-antiquity bestiary known as Physiologus popularized an elaborate allegory in which a unicorn tamed by a maiden stood for the Incarnation. This became the basic–and universal–medieval notion of the unicorn, justifying its appearance in every form of religious art.
The unicorn also acquired positive secular meanings, including chaste love and faithful marriage. (It plays this role in Petrarch’s Triumph of Chastity.) It was a heraldic motif, appearing on the national arms and coins of Scotland. The royal throne of Denmark was made of “unicorn horns” (actually narwhal tusks). The same material was used for ceremonial cups because the unicorn’s horn was believed to neutralize poison.
As for other fabulous beings, Jerome’s Life of St. Paul the First Hermit includes a friendly centaur and a God-fearing satyr. Dante’s Divine Comedy shows a griffin drawing the triumphant chariot of the Church. The monster-slaying Bellerophon mounted on Pegasus was an early Christian symbol of Christ’s victory over Satan.
Dragons adore the Christ Child in a fourteenth-century French treatise, The Life of Our Blessed Savior Jesus Christ. The infant Jesus blesses them for honoring the divine command “Praise the Lord from the Earth ye dragons” (Ps. 148:7). Mermaids, giants, sphinxes, chimeras, and other fabulous creatures from pagan myth and folklore have decorated churches and other vehicles of religious art.
And let’s not forget the four creatures which traditionally have represented the four Evangelists: a winged man (Matthew), a lion (Mark), an ox (Luke), and an eagle (John). - Source

Thus mermaids, giants, sphinxes, chimeras, and other fabulous creatures from pagan myth and folklore have decorated churches and other vehicles of religious art. The word Chimera is now also used to denote any fantastic, mythological and grotesque imaginary beast.
If the Chimera are simply considered ornamental art pieces, logic would indicate that a Chimera on a leather jacket is simply a form of art displaying the grotesque!

What's In a Name: Gargoyle, Chimera, or Grotesque?
Chimera are ornamental-only sculptures. They are the statues often depicted as monsters or mythical beasts such as birds, hybrid creatures, or monsters.
Thus, the statues that are pictured in this article were from the Notre Dame Chimera Gallery, located 150 feet (46 meters) above the Paris streets. Some of the more famous type of chimera:
Wyvern - a winged, two footed dragon
Stryga - the most famous Notre Dame chimera, often referred to incorrectly as the "Spitting Gargoyle." It faced the Eiffel Tower. (See photo below.)
Gargoyles, on the other hand, are carved drain spouts designed to carry rainwater away from a building to protect the masonry from water damage. They adorned the cathedral for more than 600 years.5 Ornate carvings of creatures with water coming out of their mouths are examples (see photo). As architectural elements, gargoyles serve a functional purpose, whereas chimeras are merely decorative.
Grotesques is the generic term for such stone carvings, regardless of whether they carry water.
Gargoyles Are Rain Diversion Devices With Spouts

Gargoyles Are Rain Diversion Devices With Spouts


Romans 1:4 / Resurrection implying Divinity of Christ Romans 1:4 states:

  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So Jesus is declared "to be the Son of God with power"
  "according to the spirit of holiness"
  "by the resurrection from the dead"

This seems to suggest that "resurrection from the dead" somehow implies the divinity of Christ.

Now, although I believe in the divinity of Christ, I don't fully understand this argument.

Elijah raised the Widow's son. Jesus raised Lazarus. Paul raised some girl.

Yet, we do not worship the widow's son, Lazarus, or that girl.

So my question is -- what is different about the resurrection of Christ that proves the divinity of Christ?

There's a difference in quality here.  The widow's son, Lazarus, and the dead girl were all raised from death back to a continuation of mortal life.  They would live out their remaining time and eventually die (again) and be buried.

Resurrection is something different entirely.  Jesus was raised from death to immortality.  In Luke chapter 24, when Jesus appears to his disciples, they're afraid, thinking they've seen a ghost, but he reassures them that he's a fully tangible person and describes the makeup of his body with the unique phrase "flesh and bones".  This contrasts strongly with the more common "flesh and blood," and suggests that although his resurrected body may have looked recognizably like the Master they knew before he died, it was not made from all the same stuff that our mortal bodies are made from.

It was this fundamental change, not having been restored from death back to mortal life, but resurrected, from death forward to immortal life, that showed Jesus's divine nature.  While other passages of scripture, such as the 5th chapter of Revelation, speak of the general resurrection of the dead, showing that this miracle is not confined solely to Christ, the rest of the dead will be raised through the act of an external agency--by the power of Christ--but Jesus, being divine, did not require an external agency:

  17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
  I might take it again.

  18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
  to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
  have I received of my Father.

  -- John 10: 17-18, emphasis added


Can a Catholic have communion if they married outside of the Catholic Church? My husband and I were married by a Protestant pastor, not a Catholic Priest. I have returned to the Catholic Church a couple of decades later. Can I participate in communion, or does my husband have to agree to marry me a second time in the Catholic Church?

If it matters, my husband was raised in a non-denominational Christian Church, and I was raised Catholic, but attended non-denominational Church after college.

About receiving communion currently

Based on this guidance from the Catechism, unless you've been adhering to the annual "Easter Duty" you may need to go to confession first before you receive communion. (It may be that simple).

  CC 1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation{aka confession} to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.  But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

About your marriage

You may be seeking to convalidate your marriage.  Based on what you've presented in your question, there aren't enough details to assess whether or not the Church would find it to be sacramental. (Canon Law;  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven).

How to convalidate the marriage

Meet with your local Catholic pastor, explain the situation you find yourselves in, and the details of your marriage, and he will be able to advise you on the path to take for your particular situation. Details matter.

  In Catholic canon law, a validation of marriage or convalidation of marriage is the validation of a Catholic putative marriage.  A putative marriage is one when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid.

Convalidation is not "getting married a second time" but it is a method by which the Church officially confirms that the marriage is indeed sacramental.  (In my experience, there was usually a rite or ceremony or celebration of varying complexity depending on the wishes of the couple).  The difference between a licit and a valid marriage may seem obscure, but from the point of view of adhering to Canon Law it matters to the Church. (The Church, to affirm any marriage, has to follow its own rules).

Based on the Catholic Canon Law a valid marriage requires certain elements:

  THE FORM OF THE CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE
  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted
  before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by
  either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the
  rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the
  exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127,
  §§1-2.
  Can.  1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

The most likely finding by the pastor, since you are the Catholic party, would be technically termed "a defect of form" since you joined in matrimony under other circumstances than are called for by Canon Law.  That doesn't mean that your bond is not sacramental, particularly as you are both baptized, but the Church has to look into all particulars to confirm that.
You may not be able to receive communion until convalidation, but you may, since the details of your situation matter(see the above about guidance on communion).  Your situation needs to be laid out to the pastor and discussed in detail so that you can get the advice that suits your situation.

If you'd like to take it a step higher, go to your local diocese at the Chancery.  They can advise you on how your marriage can be convalidated in your diocese.  There may be other reasons for the Church to find the marriage invalid1

If your case is one where your consent upholds as it did on the day you took your vows, but the "defect of form" is found(as above), and you are still married, you may be eligible for a radical sanation

  Can.  1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects. {My deacon used to call this "short form" convalidation}

  §2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor.
  Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the
  celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

  §3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that
  the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

  Can.  1163 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.

We have a number of questions and answers on convalidation, to include these two here.
3  and 2.

If you search for the tags marriage, Catholicism and convalidate (or convalidation) you'll find a number of other questions (with answers) similar to yours.

One of the things I learned in the RCIA ministry is that in the case of marriage between two baptized persons, if one of them is Catholic then the Catholic Church expects the Catholic party to adhere to Canon Law, but it does not require that the other party become Catholic for marriage.  Since you have already married outside of the Catholic Church, it can get a bit more complicated, but it may be very simple (and accepted as sacramental) if neither of you was ever married previously.  So once again, sit down with a priest and discuss the details.

  Can.  1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

  Can.  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

  Can.  1107 Even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.

1 MIXED MARRIAGES

  Can.  1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a
  marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is
  baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and
  has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is
  enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with
  the Catholic Church.

  Can.  1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if
  there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the
  following conditions have been fulfilled:

  1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to
  remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere
  promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are
  baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

  2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the
  promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is
  certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of
  the Catholic party;

  3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential
  properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to
  exclude.


Will family members get to visit each other if separated into different kingdoms in heaven? I have been told by my LDS bishop not to fear losing family members forever. I know that the family is very important to Heavenly Father and his Son, but how important is it really?

Will we get to visit our families in heaven if we are separated into different kingdoms,  such as the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms? Will only people from the Celestial get to visit others, or could family members in the Telestial visit someone in the Celestial?

I have always had the fear of losing family because we won't be able to visit each other in heaven. I have also had the fear that I might be the person to be in one of the lower kingdoms.

I would like an answer based on LDS traditions and beliefs.

I would also like to consider this question as to how could I answer it based on LDS beliefs if someone else asked me about it.

The main verses of scripture that apply to this are D&C 76:86–88, which is in the section of D&C 76 that discusses those in the telestial kingdom:

86 These [those in the telestial kingdom] are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

In other words, there will be ministration by those in the celestial kingdom to those in the terrestrial kingdom, and also by those in the terrestrial kingdom to those in the telestial kingdom. You can go down to visit people, but not up.


What is the difference between holiness and righteousness? Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God.  Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well.  These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings.

So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness?

  You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you
  from the peoples, that you should be mine.  Leviticus 20:26 ESV

  14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

  You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless
  was our conduct toward you believers.  1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV

  But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have
  heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22
  to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of
  life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in
  the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after
  the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.  Ephesians
  4:20-24 ESV

"Holy" means "set apart", as in set aside for a particular purpose, and implies being "special" and acting accordingly. In particular it means "set aside for God's service".

"Righteous" means "made right" (justified), or "being right", not in the sense of "correct", but as in "not wrong" - being pure, honest, sinless. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "not guilty" or "blameless".

The two should go hand in hand.


Is it mandatory for a Roman Catholic girl to convert to Syrian Orthodox if the boy is of the Syrian Orthodox church, in the case of marriage? If a woman is Roman Catholic, and a man is from Kerala, from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church, and they wish to marry, does the woman need to convert to Syrian Orthodoxy?  According to the Syrian Orthodox church, can she marry him while remaining a Roman Catholic and planning to raise their children as Catholics?

According to the Catholic Church's canon law on mixed marriages,

  1983 Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The Syrian Orthodox are not in communion with the Catholic Church, since the latter considers them schismatic.

According to the Syrian's norms,

  The liturgical minister should be the parish priest of the church where the marriage is celebrated, or his delegate from the same ecclesial communion.

and

  There is to be no joint celebration of marriage by the ministers of both Churches.

and

  Syrian Orthodox partner is to be reminded that he or she has to commit him/herself to imparting to their children proper Orthodox formation, to the extent possible and in agreement with his/her partner.

According to Catholic canon law, the first two points are possible, provided it is a Catholic priest and Catholic church. The last point is even more explicitly rejected in the older, 1917 formulation of Can. 1124 cited above:

  1917 Can. 1060 Most severely does the Church prohibit everywhere that marriage be entered into by two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, and the other belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect; indeed, if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

Also, regarding baptism, the Catholic Church requires that

  Can.  868 §1. … 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion…

Thus, although certain things may be permissible on the side of the Syrians, the Catholic Church is very cautious regarding mixed marriages, as they can be very spiritually dangerous to all those involved.


Why did God become angry with Balaam? Numbers 22:20-22 NIV

  That night God came to Balaam and said, "Since these men have come to
  summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you." Balaam got up
  in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite
  officials. But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the
  LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey,
  and his two servants were with him.

God said to Balaam to go with them. But when he went, God became angry with him.
Why did God become angry with him?

When God said he should go with the men this was the second embassy of men from Balak to request Balaam's help.  On the first occasion we see Balaam thinking he was a 'god dealer' trying to manipulate God and Balak, hoping to make the God of Israel give up on the Israelites and entice Him into league with Balak and at the same time get money from Balak for this service. Balaam sees God's working with him as recognition of his 'magic powers' and he is therefore acting as a mediator between God and Balak with the end goal of removing God from His allegiance with Israel.  We must remember that in paganism the gods are often motivated by the same kinds of sinful desires that we have and are not omnipotent but influenceable.

Now we see with the first embassy that God gave Balaam a message but Balaam only passed on parts of it, hoping to bring both parties together.

  But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.” The next morning Balaam got up and said to Balak’s officials, “Go back to your own country, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” (Numbers 22:12-13, NIV)

We see Balaam purposefully left out most of God's message and had no plans of 'saying what the Lord had told him'.  One can't properly imagine the type of perverse mind Balaam had. Balaam's version of God's message implied an ungrounded arbitrariness on the part of God and confirmed Balak to hope for better results under more favorable circumstances. Possibly when God was not so moody, God would reconsider?

It was under these circumstances that a second embassy from Balak came again to ask Balaam 'to curse this people'. Refusing in the first embassy to yield himself willingly to God, he would now be made the unwilling instrument of exalting God. And thus God gave him leave to do that on which he had set his heart. However because of his blinded self-satisfaction, in which the next morning he accompanied the ambassadors of Balak, 'God’s anger was kindled because he went'.

In other words the idea is God gave Balaam over to his lusts in such a way that God would manipulate him, while he thought he was manipulating God.  Yet due to the insane contradiction of reality as he should be going in obedience but his actual going was in deluded belief that he was controlling the situation, God lets him know that he was 'dumber than an ass', before sending him fully on his way. 'Yes I send you, but realize you are a dumb ass who knows not what you are doing when you go'.

Balaam's actions were as dumb as Simon Magus when he offered the apostles money to give him the power of imparting the Holy Ghost. Therefore Balaam goes down in history renown for his greed:

  They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. (2 Peter 2:15, NIV)


Who was the first to describe Methodists as the "People of the Extreme Center"? I've heard Methodists describe themselves as the "People of the Extreme Center". It gets used to mean that Methodists take the center road on a lot of issues. But I would like to know where the expression started and what it meant originally.

The Methodist Bishop Scott Jones borrowed the term to describe John Wesley's teachings. He continues to use the phrase in sermons and interviews when describing Methodist beliefs.

Jones read a magazine in which someone described himself as being in the "extreme center" in politics. The term "extreme center" is set in opposition to the "dead center" - rather than leaning too far right or too far left, the dead center does nothing. In contrast, the extreme center is living, holding both the left and right in tension, without compromising either.

On his website he explains the term via video.

  It goes back to a deep conviction I have about the Wesleyan form of Christianity. Back when I was trying to Wesley's theology to students and lay audiences, I began to talk about the ways in which Wesley combines things that, well, too often Christians see as opposites and not possible to hold together, like... justification and sanctification, evangelism and social justice. For all of these polarities, really it's about holding them together, in tension, as it were, yet each one informing the other."

From a presentation Scott Jones gave in 2007 on "The United Methodist Way":

  United Methodists are people of the extreme center. United Methodist conservatives are compassionate. United Methodist liberals are responsible...
  Taken as a whole, this way of salvation exhibits the paradox of the gospel, and we Wesleyans have it right. It is the extreme center that includes both justification and sanctification, both grace and good works, both individual salvation and the transformation of the world. It is all about God’s grace saving us and not our works. However, we are saved for the purpose of doing good works, of transforming the world.


Is it possible for a spirit to eat fish? Is it possible for a spirit to eat fish? Then how did Jesus eat fish after his resurrection (Luke 24:43).

Most branches of Christianity believe that Jesus rose from the dead bodily (ie he wasn't merely a spirit at that point). The very context of the verse you are referring to, is that he was eating the fish to show he was not a ghost to his disciples:

Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. - Luke 24:37-43 NIV, emphasis added

A related question along these lines is found here: How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body?


What is the Jehovah's Witness perspective on salvation? What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about salvation? For example, Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Do Jehovah's Witnesses place their faith in the same place or elsewhere?

Moreover, do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a salvation that is based on works or faith or works & faith working side by side?

Are they assured of salvation?

What are the scriptural passages used in the Bible or quotes from the Watchtower to support this?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in salvation by means of faith in Jesus Christ, and that we demonstrate that faith by being obedient to Jesus' commands.

I don't think I could describe it any better than the article on jw.org: What Is Salvation?

The article summarizes the cited scriptures, but to fully understand what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, you really need to read those scriptures. If you read the article directly from jw.org, the little dialog boxes make looking up the scriptures much easier.

  What Is Salvation?

  The Bible’s answer

  The terms “save” and “salvation” are sometimes used by Bible writers to convey the idea of a person’s being delivered from danger or destruction. (Exodus 14:13, 14; Acts 27:20) Often, though, these terms refer to deliverance from sin. (Matthew 1:21) Since death is caused by sin, people who are saved from sin have the hope of living forever.—John 3:16, 17.

  What is the way to salvation?

  To gain salvation, you must exercise faith in Jesus and demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands.—Acts 4:10, 12; Romans 10:9, 10; Hebrews 5:9.

  The Bible shows that you must have works, or acts of obedience, to prove that your faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26) However, this does not mean that you can earn salvation. It is “God’s gift” based on his “undeserved kindness,” or “grace.”—Ephesians 2:8, 9; King James Version.

  Can you lose out on salvation?

  Yes. Just as a person saved from drowning could fall or jump back into the water, a person who has been saved from sin but fails to keep exercising faith could lose out on salvation. For this reason, the Bible urges Christians who have received salvation “to put up a hard fight for the faith.” (Jude 3) It also warns those who have been saved: “Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”—Philippians 2:12.

  Who is the Savior—God or Jesus?

  The Bible identifies God as the primary source of salvation, often referring to him as “Savior.” (1 Samuel 10:19; Isaiah 43:11; Titus 2:10; Jude 25) In addition, God used various men to deliver the ancient nation of Israel, and the Bible calls them “saviors.” (Nehemiah 9:27; Judges 3:9, 15; 2 Kings 13:5) Likewise, since God provides salvation from sin through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Bible refers to Jesus as “Savior.”—Acts 5:31; Titus 1:4.

  Will everyone be saved?

  No, some people will not be saved. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) When Jesus was asked, “Are those being saved few?” he replied: “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able.”—Luke 13:23, 24.

Here are some more related questions answered on jw.org:

Does the Bible Teach ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’?
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?


Is the Creed a prayer? (Catholic mass) The Creed (Nicene, Apostles, etc) is formally a "profession of faith". It's basically Catholics publicly declaring their beliefs.

But, is it also a prayer? It doesn't seem to be directed to God, nor to anyone in Heaven, so it seems the answer is a plain no. For what I can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (e.g. here), it doesn't seem to have been created as a prayer either.

Is this the case?

Is the Creed a prayer? (Catholic mass)

The short answer is no.

While the creed is said at Mass, at the beginning of the rosary and on other occasions, it remains simply a code of Catholic beliefs.

  Term

  CREDO

  Definition

  I believe. A creed or code of beliefs; also applied to any one article of faith. (Etym. Latin credo, I believe.)

St. Thomas Aquinas explains the three conditions that make up a prayer and the creed does not constitute a single condition at all.

  Three conditions are requisite for prayer. First, that the person who prays should approach God Whom he prays: this is signified in the word "prayer," because prayer is "the raising up of one's mind to God." The second is that there should be a petition, and this is signified in the word "intercession." On this case sometimes one asks for something definite, and then some say it is "intercession" properly so called, or we may ask for some thing indefinitely, for instance to be helped by God, or we may simply indicate a fact, as in John 11:3, "Behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and then they call it "insinuation." The third condition is the reason for impetrating what we ask for: and this either on the part of God, or on the part of the person who asks. The reason of impetration on the part of God is His sanctity, on account of which we ask to be heard, according to Daniel 9:17-18, "For Thy own sake, incline, O God, Thy ear"; and to this pertains "supplication" [obsecratio] which means a pleading through sacred things, as when we say, "Through Thy nativity, deliver us, O Lord." The reason for impetration on the part of the person who asks is "thanksgiving"; since "through giving thanks for benefits received we merit to receive yet greater benefits," as we say in the collect [Ember Friday in September and Postcommunion of the common of a Confessor Bishop]. Hence a gloss on 1 Timothy 2:1 says that "in the Mass, the consecration is preceded by supplication," in which certain sacred things are called to mind; that "prayers are in the consecration itself," in which especially the mind should be raised up to God; and that "intercessions are in the petitions that follow, and thanksgivings at the end."

  We may notice these four things in several of the Church's collects. Thus in the collect of Trinity Sunday the words, "Almighty eternal God" belong to the offering up of prayer to God; the words, "Who hast given to Thy servants," etc. belong to thanksgiving; the words, "grant, we beseech Thee," belong to intercession; and the words at the end, "Through Our Lord," etc. belong to supplication.

  In the "Conferences of the Fathers" (ix, cap. 11, seqq.) we read: "Supplication is bewailing one's sins; prayer is vowing something to God; intercession is praying for others; thanksgiving is offered by the mind to God in ineffable ecstasy" [adoration]. The first explanation, however, is the better. - Article 17. Whether the parts of prayer are fittingly described as supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings?

Elsewhere St. Thomas in question 84.2 of his Summa, speaks more exactly about adoration as follows:

  Adoration is directed to the reverence of the person adored. Now it is evident from what we have said (God). Hence the adoration whereby we adore God is an act of religion.

There are four basic forms of prayer and the creed is not one of them:

  Prayer of Blessing and Adoration

  In this prayer we express praise and honor to God. We praise God for giving us life, for the wonder and beauty of our world, and for all the many blessings we enjoy. We open ourselves up to praise God for all the wonders of creation. This form of prayer encourages bodily expression, such as standing with arms raised or dancing.

  Prayer of Petition

  This is probably the most familiar prayer form of prayer. We are often taught to ask God for the things we need, but asking and praying for them are not necessarily the same. When we pray our petitions, we are asking God, who loves us very much, for something that we believe is good—for ourselves or for others. By using this form of prayer we are mindful of the needs of others as well as of our own needs. We are aware that God wants us to bring our problems and worries to prayer knowing that he will always hear and answer those prayers. God may answer our prayers in a different way and in a different timeframe than we are seeking but God will always give us what we need.

  Prayers of petition serve to remind us that God expects us to care for one another and for all his creation. We can pray about the ordinary experiences of life— for people who are sick, for someone who needs a job, for help in our school work, for a safe trip. We pray for peace in our families and in our world. We can also express our sorrow and contrition to God in our prayer.

  Prayer of Intercession

  This form of prayer is prayer on behalf of others. This form of prayer can be a source of blessing upon others, the Church, and our world. Because we know that Our Lady and the saints intercede for us before God, the Church encourages us to pray to them for their intercession. Such prayer can bring us great strength and courage and also great peace of mind and heart.

  Prayer of Thanksgiving

  This form of prayer helps us to be grateful for God's many blessings, spiritual and temporal, and helps us to recognize and appreciate all the good things God gives to us. Reserving some time to praise and thank God for his gifts—the gift of life; the gift of our families and friends; the gift of food, clothing, and shelter; and the numerous other gifts we often take for granted—helps us to form a true spirit of gratitude. - Basic Forms of Prayer


What is the point of Jesus' crucifixion? I'd like to obtain moral, not faith explanation - In the story about Jesus' crucifixion: how can it be considered moral that God allowed or destined the unjustified murder of His own son?

If the reason for Jesus' death was to satisfy his fathers' anger or rule, wouldn't the moral thing be for the father just calm down or change his mind? He did this before: Genesis 18,20-32. And Paul explains that love should prevail: Corinthians 13.

If the whole story was just a "game" or dramatic way to make people think about their sin and need for God, that is, the father knew that Jesus will just experience human dying, but won't be really sacrificed - I mean cease to exist - is that moral to use his own son in this way?

If Jesus opened the way to salvation for non-Jews somehow, is it moral to achieve such a desired end in such a sadistic way? It is hard to believe the thought behind: a kill will be better than love.

Or is there any other explanation how such a deed could be moral?

God is Holy
God is Just
God is Merciful

The combination of these attributes is the answer to your question.

His Holiness demands that He be obeyed, unequivocally.
His justice demands that He deal with disobedience, mercilessly.
His mercy demands that He forgive, lovingly.

How does one strike a balance in a meaningful manner? The answer is that He who knew no sin became sin, and God poured His wrath upon His Son. Unraveling the Biblical language a little bit, this means that our (the elect's) sins were imputed to Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and Christ was no longer considered perfect but sinful. Because He took our sin upon Him, we are now blameless before God, but Christ was not. Christ took the merciless wrath due us, satisfied God's justice for those under this covenant of grace, and permits God to show mercy to us because God's justice has been satisfied in Christ. The key here is that Christ became sin by taking our sin (and the corollary, for another question topic, is that we obtained Christ's righteousness). Only God has the power to do this.

The work on the cross was more than physical: the penalty Christ paid was much more than just physical death and suffering. I recommend this one-hour video for a more encompassing explanation from a Baptist/Puritan viewpoint.

Once you understand these points (obedience, justice, mercy), the rest makes perfect sense. There are deeper questions to be asked at this point (and not on this same SE question!) but I think you are better off to think of them on your own at this point.

Edit, to Address more questions from the O.P:

The transfer of the sin was not the purpose of Christ's death on the cross. It was part of the penalty that He paid for taking our sin upon Himself. In the beginning, man disobeyed God (Genesis 3). This man is named Adam. Adam is the head representative of the human race. Because he sinned, his nature changed and he was lost in disobedience without the ability to obey God. Because Adam, who was flesh, sinned, his flesh also became corrupt and he eventually died.

As I said, the point of Christ's work on the cross was to consume the wrath of God for those whom the work will cover (I know this is a confusing way to word it. I'm trying to avoid opening another topic entirely. If you have a question regarding who the work was intended to cover, it is worth another question entirely). This moral and physical death is called the curse of Adam. Christ's death on the cross satisfied the physical side of the curse of Adam. Christ's being forsook by His Father satisfied the spiritual aspect of the curse. The physical death took place in order that He would identify with the flesh and conquer sin in the flesh.

To use the term "murder" is inappropriate, here. Murder implies malice and an innocent victim. When Christ took our sin, He was no longer innocent and His death was not in malice, it was in justice.

Once God imputed our sins to Christ, if God would not have punished Him, His Holiness would have been denigrated because His justice would not be satisfied, as if to say: "Yeah, it's okay if you disobey me. No biggie." The distinction is that it is never ok to disobey God and simple "forgive and forget" could not work, or else God would be giving up His Holiness. The most heinous act you can conceive of doing to a fellow man is not as heinous as the slightest insult you can think of against God (pretending that there is a way to wrong a man without wronging God in the process).

Paul Washer's point in the video at 6:20 was that because Christ is God's Son, all of creation and events in time are for His glory, because the Father loves the Son. If we are obeying God because we want to avoid punishment or to "be moral," then we are doing it in the wrong spirit. All things are to glorify Christ.


Why does the Son have a source of existence? Why does the Son have a source of existence?

Early church fathers believed that the Son has an source or origin of existence (reference).

To have an origin is different from having a beginning. Things could have an origin without having a beginning. For instance, the time a ball is placed onto a pillow, the cushion as well as the ball placed thereon are co-eval.

The source of the Son is the Father himself, the one who begat him from all eternity (cf. John 1:1; 1:18).The Father is expressedly identified as the fountain of the Godhead (source).

Note

This question is not about the Incarnation but about the eternal generation of the Son.

... his Son, with an origin,....

This is one of the classic misconception of Trinity. Jesus is not begotten in a particular point in time by The Father. As you have mentioned Jesus is eternally begotten. That is, in the very nature of God's existence, Jesus was/is/will-be begotten by the Father for eternity. This is same as how holy spirit was/is/will-be proceeding from the father (and the son). That is being eternally begotten is not an event in the past, rather the state of existence (being) of second person of the Trinity in the Trinity.


What does Paul mean when he says Jesus "emptied himself"? In Philipians 2:7 Paul writes:

  but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in
  the likeness of men (ESV)

I always understood this to mean that he was humble enough to come into our world as a man to die on a cross. Something that I read recently though suggested that Jesus gave up some of his Godly characteristics to become a man (I'm not sure what charcteristics). This seems wrong to me as I always understood Jesus adds humanity to his Godliness, not removing Godliness to become human.

Is there a common protestant understanding of what "emptied himself" means in this verse?

The King James translates the same verse as this:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Of course, there are likely to be several different meanings attributed to this, but the most common is the one that you posted - that He took on the humble nature of a servant.

Barnes' notes on the Bible says this:  (Emphasis mine where added)

  But made himself of no reputation - This translation by no means
  conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that
  he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that
  he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is ἑαυτον
  ἐκένωσεν heauton ekenōsen. The word κενόω kenoō means literally,
  to empty, "to make empty, to make vain or void." It is rendered: "made
  void" in Romans 4:14; "made of none effect," 1 Corinthians 1:17; "make
  void," 1 Corinthians 9:15; "should be vain," 2 Corinthians 9:3. The
  word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the
  passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to
  emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case
  where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to
  that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.
  In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:

  (1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his
  divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not
  cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and
  good.

  (2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the
  symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward
  expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is
  conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his
  almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always
  exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be
  for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or
  symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections.
  Yet,

  (3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential
  glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud,
  or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his
  beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His
  luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to
  the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is
  much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the
  apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or
  that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual
  change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of
  the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and
  conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us
  fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his
  being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase "being in
  the form of God" - and took upon himself another form and
  manifestation in the condition of a servant.

In short, per the Barnes' notes, He did not lay aside any of His power or Godly characteristics, He merely did not exercise them.

Gills' commentary says this:

  ...He lost nothing of what he had; the glory of his divine nature was
  covered, and out of sight;...

Vincent's Word Studies also agrees:

  The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of
  existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He
  laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of
  His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a
  servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His
  self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being
  changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness
  of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which
  animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert
  equality with God. He was able not to assert it.

as do Wesley's notes

  Though he remained full, John 1:14, yet he appeared as if he had been
  empty; for he veiled his fulness from the sight of men and angels.

Most of the commentaries that I can find agree with your original understanding of the phrase.  He retained all His power and glory, he merely chose not to exercise it.

These, and a whole slew of other commentaries are available at http://bible.cc/philippians/2-7.htm


Are incenses burned inside LDS temples like the ancient Jerusalem Temple? Why or Why not? I apologize if this question is not appropriate because I understand and I respect that the ordinances performed within the walls of LDS temples are sacred and holy and are not talked about. However, I know they are not secret (as there are open houses), so I'm not sure if asking about incense burning qualifies as an ordinance or not. If it is, please feel free to remain mum about it, but if it's permissible to talk about -- can an LDS member tell me if incense burning occurs in modern LDS temples akin to the Jerusalem Temple? Why or why not?

No, incense is not burned in LDS temples.

In the temple at Jerusalem, and in some traditional Christian liturgy (such as the Catholic mass), burning incense is used as a symbol for prayer, which ascends to heaven and is pleasing to God. It is also a symbol of the Savior Jesus Christ.

As part of the LDS temple ceremony, participants gather around a table representing an altar to pray. A temple worker kneels to lead the prayer, just as the priest offered prayer in the temple at Jerusalem. Prayer is offered on behalf of those attending, as well as friends and family members with specific needs.

The symbolism and ritual used to teach in temples shares ancient roots with Jewish and Catholic ritual, but has been adapted to meet the needs of people today.


What is the significance of one-third in Revelation? Why is everything 1/3 in Revelation?
It comes up with the four angels, and the dragon:

8:7 The first [angel's trumpet] sounded, ... and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8 The second angel sounded, ... and a third of the sea became blood, 9 and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. 11 The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way.
9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.
12:4 And [the dragon's] tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

As with any part of Revelation there are primarily four main theories.  Coincidentally most of them take the 1/3 literally regardless of the view as represented a significant judgment but minority (only 1/3) implicated result on the things in this world that otherwise sustain life. Here are the main views very briefly and overly simplified as pertaining one example:

  The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. (NIV Revelation 8:7)

Historicist

When barbarians attacked Rome in ~AD 410, there was burning or destroying everything in their path. Approximately 1/3 of the Roman Empire was ravaged.

Preterist

Similar to historicist but everything sandwiched around the sacking of Israel by Rome. Therefore destruction of actual vegetation in the land around Jerusalem. Let's assume around 1/3.

Futurist

The most literal of all views with everything in the future, probably a literal 1/3 of the earth destroyed by nuclear bombs or something like it in whatever kind of bombs that might exists in the unknown future.

Symbolic/Spiritual

Basically the obvious symbolism that can be imagined. For example 'whatever' kind of destruction which at any time damages the earth such as what we see on the news.  Maybe 1/3 is actually greater then what is actual but symbolism does not need to literally match the figure employed.

Note: I am a rare bird these days as I have unexpectedly switched from Symbolic to the Historicist view, which is really not that popular anymore. I started out in my teens as a futurist, moved to Symbolic, almost became a Preterist just before resting in my current view, Historicist. This is how I have became familiar with them over the last 25 years.


Adam and Eve, and the 10 Commandments This question is regarding a part of an answer in a question on Hermeneutics.SE,

  Adam and Eve violated all 10 commandments in the garden.

The 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-7)

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make or worship idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Honour your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
You shall not covet your neighbour's house, your neighbour's wife, your neighbour's servant, ox or donkey; or anything else that belongs to your neigbour.

How can it be seen that all 10 Commandments were broken within the Garden of Eden?

It is a commonly held belief among Christians that transgression of any of the 10 commandments leads to death. Therefore since transgression of any of them is the same as transgressing all of them. In other words murder has no worse penalty than lying about your neighbor. Those are both accepted as mortal sins.
Paul stated:

Romans 5:12, 13, and 24  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

and

Romans 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Jesus stated:

John 8:34  Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

James states:

James 2:10 and 11  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

F.B.Meyers Commentary states:
"While the Jews taught that "he who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt; and so has he done who has only broken one precept;" they also taught, "that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law," and gave for an example the forsaking of idolatry. To correct this false doctrine was the object James had in view."

Matthew 5:18 through 20  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Galatians 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Adam and Eve did not actually commit murder as such, but what they did was to bring into the World the knowledge of right and wrong. All of the things prohibited in the 10 Commandments are willful choosing of wrong over right. It is that choice which God finds abhorrent. It is that choice which led to the expulsion of Lucifer and the rebellious Angels. Since Adam and Eve did not commit all sins enumerate in the 10 Commandments in actuality, They still brought the penalty for them into the World.
God does not regard sin as having various penalties, and therefore; it can be said that Adam and Eve are guilty of all sin, though they did not commit each separately.
Hope this makes sense to you and helps.


Is there a good example of believers seeking out advice from other believers in the Bible, especially one that is a story children would understand? I am also looking for an example of believers (Old Testament Jews or New Testament Christians) getting advice from other believers. Again, this is for teaching children aged 5-8 so ideally it will be a story to which they can relate.

There are individual verses that help eg:

Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 15:22

but a story is better. I briefly considered the council at Jerusalem which is a story but I don't think children could relate to it.

I would offer 1 Samuel also, but specifically 1 Sam 3:1-10 in which Samuel as a child receives advice from Eli on responding to God's call.


If someone is forced to take the punishment for sin (Jesus), doesn't that mean that God never forgives? Even if Jesus is God Himself and He took the punishment Himself, that would still mean that He never forgives, because He would rather punish Himself than show forgiveness for sin, right?

Not only is God loving, merciful and forgiving, He is also just. God will not allow sinful deeds to go unpunished:

He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord. (Psalms 33:5)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;
steadfast love and faithfulness go before you. (Psalms 89:4)
I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. (Ecclesiastes 3:17)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Colossians 3:35)

At the same time, God is loving, and as such He does not want us to suffer. In keeping with His loving and just nature, God chose to willing take on human flesh and take the punishment that we all deserve:

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Because Jesus is God, who is eternal, and lived a sinless life, He is capable of justly paying the price for our sins in our place. Additionally, His sacrifice parallels Adam's original sin; where as Adam's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so Jesus's one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)


Did Jesus die for all? Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all “ in Matthew 26:28? In Matthew 26, Jesus said,

Matthew 26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

And In Isaiah, please take note the word “many”

Isaiah 53:11b-12
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.
Therefore I will give him his portion among the great,
and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty,
Because he surrendered himself to death
and was counted among the wicked;
And he shall take away the sins of many
and win pardon for their offenses.

Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all”? If Jesus died for all, this would mean it includes those other religion who don’t believe or reject Jesus as their God. If the answer is yes, this would contradict the passage in the Gospel of John,

John 14:6 (RHE): Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Your question is really two questions, the first is theological, the second is whether "all" and "many" are semantically synonymous enough to be interchangeable.

The second question is addressed first, because, properly understood, the Scriptures themselves will answer the first question. The adjectives, "many and "all" are not grammatically synonymous in either English or Greek ("polloi", "pas").  While both are indefinite adjectives, and used to describe/distinguish/emphasize some property of a (contextually) defined set, they address different properties. "Many" addresses the relative number in the set (not "few"). On the other hand, "all", connotes inclusion, without exception (not "some").  For illustration, many cars are red, but not all cars are red. Some are blue; some are green; a few are pink, in which, the contextually defined set is cars, and the property is color. Also, note, once having been defined, the set's identification/description is usually assumed for subsequent adjectives. This results in "floating" adjectives (an adjective without an explicitly associated focal-object). "Floating" adjectives are common within the the received (Greek) text, especially within long, complex sentences, and especially when the set's description is long, cumbersome, complex or complicated.  Accordingly, in order to facilitate readability, as well as, grammatical-acceptability, translators sometimes render "floating" indefinite-inclusive adjectives as indefinite, inclusive pronouns ("all" or "each" is rendered, "everyone/everybody/everything"). A second grammatically acceptable option is to insert a plausible, numerically-indefinite noun or pronoun, immediately after the "floating" indefinite adjective. Interpretation errors result when this inserted word is inconsistent with the contextually-defined focal-set. Moreover, proper interpretation is especially difficult when the inserted word is not identified as having been "inserted". Since God is not the author of confusion (1Cor 14:33), nor ever errs or contradicts himself, erroneous insertions or interpretations cause (apparent) contradictions.

Regarding your first question, "Did Jesus die for everybody?.

1) If "many" is never synonymous with "all", because "many"  never implies without exception, the answer to your first question is implicitly negated within your (Mt 26:28) quotation, namely, Jesus died for many (some, not everyone). Other similarly relevant uses of "many" include Mt 26:28 (ransom for many); Is 53:11-12 (many accounted righteous...bore the sins of many), Rom 9:28 (to bear the sins of many).

FYI: The "many/some" are elsewhere identified: Mt1:21 (His people), and Jn10:11 (for the sheep)

2) The phrase,"died for everybody" can not be found in any English Bible, nor the Greek equivalent.

3) So then, if Jesus only died for "some", what about (seemingly) contradicting verses like 2Cor 5:15, 1Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9 (died for all/everyone/all people), (ransom for all men), (tasted death for everyone)? In all three verses, a "floating" indefinite Greek adjective is either translated or interpreted outside of its locally-defined context.  In all three verses, the local, contextually defined-focus is exclusive (not "everybody", nor "all men" (as usually interpreted and/or inserted). Accordingly, these verses illustrate how a strong "proof-text" for limited atonement is converted into a strong "proof-text" for unlimited atonement: by translating or interpreting one "floating" adjective, outside/beyond its locally-defined focal-context).


What is an overview of interpretations of the concept of "Sabbath-rest" presented in Hebrews 4? Hebrews 4:1-11 (NIV) says:

4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let
us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2
For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did;
but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did
not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed
enter that rest, just as God has said,
“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world.
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
“On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[c] 5 And again in
the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and
since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not
go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day,
calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke
through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[d]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later
about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the
people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from
their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by
following their example of disobedience.

What is this "Sabbath-rest for the people of God" that everyone should make every effort to enter, as Hebrews 4 indicates? What does this rest consist of, in simple and concrete terms? How does one enter this rest? How does one exit it? Are we to experience this rest during this life or in the afterlife? Is it temporary (e.g. every seventh day) or permanent (i.e. every day)? Are there rules/conditions governing it (in terms of things one is expected to do/not to do during the rest)?
In light of the previous questions: What is an OVERVIEW of the main interpretations the concept of "Sabbath-rest" is given in Christianity?

(**) Note: the multiple questions above are just suggested guidelines to explain the concept of "Sabbath-rest" which different denominations may interpret differently. Think of them as points to keep in mind while writing your overview, i.e., you don't have to answer each one explicitly, feel free to structure your answer as you see fit.

I have really only seen two major divisions in interpreting the "rest" considered in Hebrews 4.  The first is a fragmented or parceled-out rest that can be accepted or received in stages and the second is a completed package.  In the first view, whatever is most difficult to apprehend may be left off for now while that which is "at minimum" may be availed.  In the second view, while the fullness of "rest" may escape us experientially in the present, once entered the whole package has been accessed.  I am unaware of exactly where each Christian denomination falls within these two divisions except to say that Adventists are in the first and most mainline Christian denominations are in the second.  Within the second there are those who hold that the "rest" is ultimately a future heaven and those who hold that the "rest" is both now and future.  The differences between these are tied up in differences in soteriology and not in the nature of the "rest" itself.  Both positions converge in the idea that, from God's perspective, the "rest" is and always has been completed.
Position 1
The magazine "Adventist Today", in an article analyzing Hebrews 4, has little to say regarding once per week Sabbath keeping.  Where Hebrews 4:3 says, "For we who have believed enter that rest" there is reference to the old testament sacrifices and indeed the keeping of the whole covenant of the Law but it is given in the negative:

For one thing, verse three starts by saying, “we who have believed enter that rest.” And as the English translation indicates, the form of the Greek verb “enter” does not imply a future tense in which believers “will enter that rest” but suggests either that they enter rest now or are in the process of entering. Plus, the phrase “have believed” clearly suggests an accomplished action.  In other words, the original readers were in some sense already experiencing rest in the present, at least in part. Verse ten confirms this idea by saying that those who partake of God’s rest have also rested from their own works, a phrase that almost certainly refers to their acceptance of the atonement that Christ had already achieved (1:3; 9:24-26). In that case, the “works” they had laid down would surely include the old testament sacrifices, and possibly the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole.

No indication is given here that the Sabbath commandment is either included in or excluded from "the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole".  As the article progresses, however, it becomes apparent that the Sabbath rest is seen as something that predates Sinai.  The rest that yet remains for God's people is that Edenic rest which was part of God's original creation and which was forfeited by Adam and Eve.  This rest has always been available for anyone who would "come and claim it":

Finally, the Greek word translated “remain” throughout the chapter, like the related word remnant, conveys the idea of something left over. This facet of the term’s meaning would help explain the unexpected reference to God’s finished work in creation, because it implies that the rest into which the Israelites should have entered is the same rest that Adam and Eve had forfeited in the garden. It points to the original creation rest that God established in the beginning but which had gone unused. That means the promised land was a new installment of Eden. It also means the rest that has been available since the time of Christ is a slice of creation rest too, a reinstatement of the untainted wholeness “left over” from the beginning.
Putting all these hints and allusions together, the author of Hebrews seems to be saying that from the seventh day of creation on, God’s work has been finished. And from the time of Abraham on, the homeland that God had prepared for His people had been finished too. Each of these provisions constituted a kind of rest that was in place the whole time, like a gift prepared for a friend who never arrived to pick it up. The completed rest of God – like that still-wrapped gift – has “remained” there on the shelf, so to speak, ready and waiting for people to come and claim it. Moreover, from a first-century perspective, Jesus had just added another rest, His completed, once-for-all atonement. So, spiritual rest had been provided too, though his readers were on the verge of wasting that gift as well.

This view appears to interpret "rest" in a somewhat layered fashion with the intended "rest" of creation parceled out or manifested in "installments" of physical/temporal rest available through the land promised to Abraham and in the "spiritual rest" provided by Christ.  The summary of the article encourages us that, if all of this is too difficult to accept all at once, we can "at minimum" enjoy relational peace with God now.

To sum up, the mind-blowing, mystical lesson encrypted in the fourth chapter of Hebrews is this: in some sense, everything is already done, complete, and finished; and has been from the beginning. The chapter thus imparts a vision of how to live fruitfully in the present, not in quietism or passive inaction but in the peace and power of the Spirit. It intimates a life of faith that unfolds organically, in which individuals embrace rest as their starting point and perform their work in a mindset of rest, while progressing towards ultimate rest in the kingdom. And should all that be too much to accept, then, at minimum the chapter invites believers to know relational peace with God now, confident that His work of reconciliation is indeed finished and that they too “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).”

Remarkably, in this Adventist treatment of Hebrews chapter 4, there is no mention of any requirement of weekly Sabbath keeping or any instruction or defense regarding which day of the week the Sabbath should be.
Position 2

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works. - Hebrews 4:4

Hebrews 4 defines this rest that is being spoken of as that rest wherein God rested from all his works.  Verses 3 and 5 further define that rest as a possession of God:  My rest.  It is that rest with which God has rested.  In the creative act God accomplished all that He intended including those things which, in our temporal economy, appear as yet future.  In this way the coming forth of Israel's ruler (yet future) is said to be "from of old, from ancient days". (Micah 5:2).  In this way also the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).  God has rested and yet His works continue to unfold.

For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest - Hebrews 4:2-3a

Hebrews clearly presents faith/belief in "the message" as the mechanism of entry.  In context it is the people of Israel's entry into the promised land that is treated immediately and "the message" is that God has promised to give them the land and has promised to go before them preparing the way and fighting the battles for them.  In chapter 3 we see the flip side where unbelief is categorically given as the reason some did not enter rest:

And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. - Hebrews 3:18-19

The exodus generation refused to believe "the message" regarding entry into what God had promised and they spun 'round in the wilderness for 40 years and most died there because of unbelief.  The current generation, to whom Hebrews is written, are similarly in danger of falling short of belief in "the message" regarding the Christ of God.  The entire epistle appeals to them to cease going about (through religious activities and works of the Law) to establish their own righteousness and to receive the righteousness of God which is by faith.

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. - Hebrews 3:12-14

It appears as though it were possible to become hardened by sin's deceitfulness into developing an evil, unbelieving heart which may lead one to fall away from the living God.  It is unclear in the text whether this falling away can occur once entry into "rest" has taken place or if developing unbelief hinders entry.  Significantly, this passage links entering God's rest with "sharing in Christ" and also links the belief needed to enter with perseverance in that belief until the end.
Note:  Theological bunny trails may begin here regarding perseverance as an act of human will or a gift of Divine grace, or some mixture of the two but they need not be entertained under this question.

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:9-10

The content of the Sabbath rest that is available for the people of God to enter is not a list of prohibitions or prescriptions; it is a cessation of works.  Just as God rests in this Sabbath from His works so too, we who enter into this Sabbath rest from our works.
The report from the scouts into the promised land (Numbers 13) described all the ways that the people of Israel could not possibly enter the land and overcome the difficulties they perceived there.  In other words, their faith lay in what works they could accomplish rather than trusting in the promise of the Living God.  They were not resting from their works, they were relying on them.  This is the unbelief which hindered their entry:  Trusting in their works rather than God's.
In like manner we must not entertain all the myriad ways that we cannot possibly enter into eternal life.  We must not allow ourselves an evil, unbelieving heart by which we abandon full trust in the promise of God and we begin to try to work our way into the kingdom or count ourselves as worthy or not by virtue of our works.  God, in Christ, has done all that can be or need be done regarding reconciliation and all who enter by Him will be rested.
For Israel, entrance into the rest of God necessitated trusting in the "work" that God would do on their behalf in the promised land.   In the Gospel age entrance into the Sabbath rest now is entirely a matter of trusting that God will accomplish what He has promised in Christ.  Once entered that person has ceased from his own works.
Resting from our works is not a condition for entry into God's Sabbath, it is a description of that rest.  It is also not a motionless rest:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Ephesians 2:10

And we also see Divine activity within this Sabbath rest of God:

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” - John 5:16-17

In the following verses of John 5 Jesus explains how that He only does what He sees the Father doing.  He has just done a work of healing on the legal Sabbath (religious rest), all of which fall within the confines of the Divine Sabbath (God's rest), to demonstrate that He is Lord of the Sabbath and that good works are always permissible because they are not man's works but God's works which, in the Divine economy, are already completed.
Jesus, in doing only God's work, was "resting" from his own works.  Now we, who have believed in His Name and been saved are "in Christ" and have entered into the Sabbath rest of God with Him..  Jesus is the Sabbath rest that we may enter.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  - Matthew 11:28-30


What elements are most commonly included in an exposition of faith? The "exposition of faith" (expositio fidei) or "statement of faith" is quite common. The early Church fathers often summarized an exposition of faith, and today, many Christian websites, especially those of churches, summarize a statement of faith for all to see.

What do most statements of Christian faith include? I know this is relatively subjective, but there does tend to be some consensus among the many I have seen.

Any listing of specific doctrinal statements would be, as you noted, subjective, and therefore not constructive per site guidelines.  The best answer that I can think of that would fall within site guidelines would be to give a generic answer that's applicable to all.  The approach I'm going to take is the same approach that I'd take if someone were to ask me "what should be on my resume?" while looking for a job.

The things that should be included in a statement of faith should be those doctrines that the Church/denomination in question places importance on.  This helps people that are trying to choose a Church to know what the Church teaches, and helps them to avoid wasting their time on one that teaches false doctrine.  In general, that should include:

The Church's teaching on the nature of God
The Church's teaching on the nature of man
The Church's teaching on Scriptures (are they inerrant?  Which do we use?  Do we use the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or do we include Apocrypha, or the Book of Mormon, or some other Scripture?)
The Church's teaching on the nature of sin, man's state, and how it affects the relationship with God?
The Church's teaching on salvation
The Church's teaching on who Christ is

Beyond that, it may also include any of the following if the Church/denomination in question deems them as central teachings

The Church's teaching on the Gifts of the Spirit (Tongues, healing, etc.)
The Church's teaching on modern/continuing revelation
The Church's teaching on prophets in the modern day
The Church's teaching on which Bible is the best (Thinking of KJV-only Churches here)

The Church's teaching on a literal account of Creation/the fall of man, etc.

In short, the included elements are entirely dependent on the teachings of the Church.  The items in the top list are those that are likely going to be important for an outsider to do an "at-a-glance" evaluation on what the Church teaches.  They're the types of things you'd want to know if you're in a new city looking for a Church to attend, or if you're shopping for a new Church.  If those all fall in line with sound doctrine, then you can move on to the items on the second list.

These items are still important, but less agreed upon.  The first list are items that most Christians would agree on, and if something "smells wrong" in that list, it should be easy enough to write off that Church as being wrong.  The secondary items might help someone who is sure of their beliefs to find a Church that more closely aligns with his or her beliefs.


Knowledge of your sin For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries

~ Hebrew 10:26-27

Just what is knowledge of your sin? Is it being told / someone agreeing with you? Only when the bible says is sin? What if you feel uneasy about what your doing? If feeling uneasy and know your doing wrong is a sin, what about doing something to protect those you love (fighting, not out of rage) or displaying tough love. Or rather, how does the bible separate knowledge of sin, the feeling you've done something wrong, and actual sin?

I'm going to try my best, but please correct me if I stated anything incorrectly. It seems that most of your question lies in the separation between:

  1) knowledge of sin

  2) feeling of sin

  3) actual sin

In relation to "the knowledge of the truth".

Well first off, what is "knowledge of sin"? Where do we get that? Romans 3:20 says:

  Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

With this, we can figure out that God's law is how we become conscious of our sin. This is how we are able to find out we are sinners. If I am correct, this is referred to as "revelation". Knowledge of our sin is revealed to us through God's Word and His standards (the law).

Further we have Romans 7:7:

  What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

What about "feeling of sin" and "uneasiness of sin"? I am unsure about how to answer you for this. Feelings are quite subjective and are hard to use as a basis. However, there is "conviction of sin" which goes a little deeper. This is because feelings are strongly tied to emotions whereas conviction involves a change of attitude toward sin. This is displayed by Joseph in Genesis 39:9 and Isaiah in Isaiah 6:5. They had a change in attitude toward sin. Note that this is different than having simply shame or a guilty conscious that anyone may have without any change in their action. "Uneasiness of sin" may be "conviction of sin" and since "knowledge of sin" is revealed through God's law, that should be the place to go to find out if that conviction is real.

Actual sin is any act contrary to the will and law of God. This can be through omission or commission. If you are truly concerned with whether something is an actual sin or not, sometimes it's best to check whether it is "definitely good" or "glorifying to God".

For this, there is Romans 14:23:

  “Everything that does not come from faith is sin”

And 1 Corinthians 6:12:

  “Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me—but I will not be mastered by anything”

There are some other passages you can check such as 1 Corinthians 10:31. Hopefully this would help clarify what is "not sin" so that you can know what "is sin".


Who are innocent people according to Bible? My question stemmed from this wiki article under the heading "Views and Marches" where I was bit puzzled on the definition of innocent people as given by this personality in UK.

How does Christianity define the innocence of people? Or who according to Bible can be termed as innocent people on this earth? Is there any broad measure by which we can say that so and so people are innocent?

A word search for Innocent reveals many examples to help us with a definition. The Bible clearly tells us that we are sinners worthy of condemnation (Romans 3:19-23), so innocence as used in the Bible is relative to one's actions in the society, just as it is in normal usage.

The innocent obey the laws and are fair to their neighbors, so when they are preyed upon by the unscrupulous, they are identified as "innocent" because they themselves did not initiate the evil brought upon them:

  Deuteronomy 27:25 - Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an
  innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Also, it seems that they are innocent because the evil done against them violated the Lord's will, and the violence upon them was unjustified by the perpetrators:

  2 Kings 21:16 -  Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till
  he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin
  wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the
  sight of the Lord.

  Exodus 23:7 - Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and
  righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

The innocent also have a strong moral sense, and take action against the wrong, as we see in this parallelism with "upright" and "innocent":

  Job 17:8 - Upright men shall be astonied at this, and the innocent
  shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.


What are demons according to the Catholic Church? What are these demons?

There are a lot written outside the Torah or New Testament on this. The comment on this question you might find in the book of Enoch or the Talmud, and many other scriptures. Fallen angels or created by the sin men commit.

Many say there are or if connected to the soul. But what are they and can they be more then one thing?

According to the Catholic Church.

According to the Catholic Church, demons are simply fallen angels: i.e., angels who have sinned gravely against God and are now living the eternal consequences of their separation from Him.

Angels

Angels are creatures that, like us, are persons (that is, they are capable of intellectual knowledge and free acts of love). However, unlike us, they are not limited by corporeity—that is, they are pure spirits and have no bodies. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC),

  As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness (No. 330).

According to nature, therefore, angels are much mightier and more noble beings than we are.

The fallen angels, also called demons

Like us, angels are submitted to a kind of trial, in which they may choose to serve God for all eternity and enjoy the Beatific Vision, or else they may refuse to serve Him and be forever deprived of His presence. Those angels who chose the latter course are the “fallen angels,” also known as “demons.” As the Catechism puts it,

  Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. [The reference is to 2 Pet. 2:4.] This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” [Gen. 3:5] The devil “has sinned from the beginning” [1 Jn. 3:8]; he is “a liar and the father of lies” [Jn. 8:44] (No. 392).

The Devil, or Satan, is simply the chief of these rebellious angels:

  Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing” [Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800] (No. 391).


What is the Amillennial view of the ‘Times of the Gentiles’? Exactly when are the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ according to the Amillennial prophetic viewpoint?

  “There will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this
  people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive
  among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the
  Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke
  21:23-24)

I am looking for precise start and finish dates. What events mark those dates?  Also, a brief summary of the Amillennial thinking concerning this prophecy would be useful.

There  does not seem to be one view.   It is taken either as having a “temporal” significance or an “eschatological” one by Amillenials.

  The Non-Millenarian View [1]

  This takes us to the third point, and that is the meaning of the
  phrase “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (v. 25).
  Most commentators agree that Paul’s use of “until” (achri) has
  temporal significance and is intended to mark that period of time when Israel’s hardening ends and her fullness and acceptance
  begins.[53] Others, however, such as O. Palmer Robertson, insist
  that the term has an eschatological significance and is indicative
  of a condition that continues until the end.[54] The key here is
  Paul’s phrase “the full number of the Gentiles.” According to
  Anthony Hoekema, “The fullness here . . . must be understood in an eschatological way: the full number of Gentiles God intends to save.
  When that number of Gentiles has been gathered in, it will be the end
  of the age.”[55] Based on this interpretation, when the full number of
  elect believers among the Gentiles has come in, then Israel’s hardness
  will be removed, and Israel will attain the promised fullness and
  acceptance shortly before the return of Jesus Christ. This
  interpretation also comports with Jesus’s words that after God’s
  judgment falls on Israel and her people are scattered among the
  nations, “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the
  times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). Once the times of
  the Gentiles are fulfilled, God will remove Israel’s present hardness
  of heart, and the nation will at long last return to her Messiah.

[1] “A case for Amilennialism”, © 2003, 2013 by Kim Riddlebarger Published by Baker Books a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakerbooks.com

http://a.co/20aOOub