Are there examples of God forgiving without sacrifice? So far I have seen, some kind of sacrifice, direct or indirect, is required to have forgiveness from sin. So, my question is - Are there examples of God forgiving our sins without any sacrifice?

Hebrews 9:22 answers this question definitely:

  Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and
  without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

The author of Hebrews goes on from this verse to say that the spiritual things needed to be purified with greater sacrifices than that of animals, and pointed to the sacrifice of Christ, which puts away all sins. See that argument developed in chapter ten.


Was the white smoke ever supposed to be miraculous? With everybody waiting on a puff of white smoke to eminate from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, the engineer in me is curious about the mechanics.

I know in modern times that a special additive to the ballots is added to make the white smoke, but I wonder about the origin of this custom. Was there a time when the white smoke was not something that was manually introduced- akin to the Coptic Pope being chosen by a blindfolded boy?

Or, if in fact this always had been an engineered thing, when and why did the custom begin? More importantly, has it always been the same thing added to make white smoke? Who figured out the mechanics of it all?

No, it's never been miraculous.

Paper burns with a light-coloured smoke, so to produce white smoke just the ballot papers are burned. To produce black smoke, it used to be the case that damp straw was added but that was also capable of producing smoke which didn't look black.

AP reports that for the 2005 conclave (which elected Benedict XVI) the Holy See introduced a second stove which produced coloured smoke. The ballot papers were burned, but the colour was chemically produced in order that it was unmistakeable.

Judging by the first emission of black smoke, which was clearly black even in the evening, it would appear that this chemical method is in use for the current conclave too.

Picture from AP reproduced on The Blaze blog


Catholic Church and the Critique of Pagan Worship? There has and still is a major Critique of The Catholic Church when it comes to doctrine around the Pope and the leadership structure and also what is seen as the worship of Mary, you may also add the statues that were remade from pagan gods into the saints of the church. The critique is large and it often comes from the rest of the Body of Christ (the church).

I will confront the question from the view of Sun god worship. Common knowledge that change came with Constantine (not a controversial view of History). Suddenly  "Christian Holy days" match with pagan dates and even more controversial the structure of pagan worship does match as well.

The structure of the leadership in connection to the story of Nimrod
You see the round wafers in the sacrament and in the monstrance symbolize the sun (the sun was erected above the altars in the worship of Baal)
The wine turns into blood (drinking blood) not just a symbol
The columns of St Peter's Basilica in Rome have a sun-like image, and a wall has a golden sunburst image just as in the Babylonian temple

So much to say and has been said. Many books on this critique or just plain history books.

The question here is how does the Catholic Church deal with this problem. Are there any books, sermons, teaching or maybe you can present the full answer below, How does the Catholic Church deal with such questions, that is one question, the strong connection with pagan worship or the accusation of it?

Cardinal Newman, the leader of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England who converted to that of Rome in 1847 wrote a book entitled An Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He describes the problem in Chapter 8, Section 2, Paragraph 12.

  That great portion of what is generally received as Christian Truth is in its rudiments, or separate parts, to be found in heathen philosophies and religions.

He lists amongst these a doctrine of the Trinity, the ceremony of washing, the rite of Sacrifice,  the Divine Word, the doctrine of the Incarnation, angels and demons, a sacerdotal order and a new birth.

He says that Mr (Henry) Milman argues from this that

  These thing are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian

but that we (Cardinal N and the RCC) prefer to say

  These things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.

He explains

  From the beginning the Moral Governor of the World has scattered the seed of truth far and wide over its extent, that they have variously taken root and grown as in the wilderness, wild plants but living; and hence that as the inferior animals have an immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas they are not directly divine.

A little later he says one way Providence has imparted divine knowledge to (the Church) is by allowing her to draw and collect it together out of the world and so to suck the milk of the Gentiles.

In so far as this question is a resource request, Cardinal Newman is someone who addressed this issue.


Did St. Paulinus of Nola sell himself into slavery to redeem one slave? An online timeline of slavery that I came across reads:

  354-431: Paulinus, bishop of Nola, (whom Avalos criticizes for alleged
  racism) liberates his own slaves, spends his considerable wealth
  redeeming citizens of Campania, and then, (allegedly, will need to
  look into this further), goes into slavery to redeem one captive.

From: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/10/abolition-of-slavery-early-years.html?m=1

Does anyone have any further information that might be of assistance in discovering what exactly the particulars of this might be?

The story appears in Butler's Lives of Saints, a standard reference for many saints' histories. The relevant part of the (brief) Butler's entry reads:

St. Gregory the Great tells us that when the Vandals of Africa had made a descent on Campania, Paulinus spent all he had in relieving the distress of his people and redeeming them from slavery. At last there came a poor widow; her only son had been carried off by the son-in-law of the Vandal king. "Such as I have I give thee," said the Saint to her; "we will go to Africa, and I will give myself for your son." Having overborne her resistance, they went, and Paulinus was accepted in place of the widow's son, and employed as gardener. After a time the king found out, by divine interposition, that his son-in-law's slave was the great Bishop of Nola. He at once set him free, granting him also the freedom of all the townsmen of Nola who were in slavery.

Saint Gregory's relation of the story is in Greek; but the editors of the Patrologia Latina have kindly provided a Latin translation, which appears in Volume 77 of the Patrologia, in Chapter 1 of the third of the "Four Dialogues".
The Latin version of the story begins:

Cum saeventium Vandalorum tempore fuisset Italia in partibus Campaniae depopulata, multique essent de hac terra in Africanum regionem transducti, vir Domini Paulinus cuncta quae ad episcopii usum habere potuit captivis indigentibusque largitus est. Cumque iam nihil omnino superesset quod petentibus dare potuisset, quodam die vidua advenit, quae a regis Vandalorum genero suum filium in captivitate fuisse ductum perhibuit, atque a viro Dei eius pretium postulavit, si forte illius dominus hoc dignaretur accipere, et hunc concederet ad propria remeare.
Sed vir Domini magnopere petenti feminae quid dare potuisset inquirens, nihil apud se aliud nisi se invenit, petentique feminae respondit, dicens: Mulier, quod possim dare non habeo, sed memetipsum tolle, servum me iuris tui esse profitere, atque ut filium tuum recipias, me vice illius in servitium trade.

That is (my own translation):

When, in the time of the cruel Vandals, Italy was depopulated in the region of Campania [Nola is in Campania], and many people were carried away from this country into the regions of Africa, Paulinus, a man of God, offered up to the captives and the needy everything he had that was meant for the use of the bishopric. And even though there was nothing left over which he could give to those seeking [help], one day a widow came [to him], who indicated that her son had been taken into captivity by the son-in-law of the king of the Vandals; and requested this man of God [to offer] his ransom, if perhaps that lord would deign to accept it, and to allow this one [i.e. her son] to come back to his own.
But the man of God, questioning the lady seeking his help about what she might be able to give, found that she had  nothing on her except herself; and he responded to the lady, saying: Woman, I do not have anything that I might be able to give; but take me, myself; say that I am your servant by law, and so that you can receive your son, exchange me for him in slavery.

The story is rather long, but it goes on by relating how the widow initially laughed, but was eventually won over by Paulinus' eloquence. When they went to see the king in Africa, Paulinus claimed that he was good at gardening; and because the king's son-in-law loved gardens, the king agreed to the exchange. After Paulinus had worked in the garden for quite some time, and gained the son-in-law's confidence, he told him to make sure that the kingdom was set in order, since the king would soon die. The son-in-law mentioned this to the king, who decided he wanted to talk to him. Gregory reports that as soon as the king saw him, he began to tremble, saying to his daughter that he had seen in a dream this man and others sitting in judgment over him, and having him whipped for what he had done to them.
The king constrained Paulinus to tell who he truly was (after Paulinus tried to avoid the question), and when the king discovered that he was a bishop, he was very afraid of possible divine consequences, and offered to send Paulinus back to his homeland with whatever gifts Paulinus wanted to ask for. Paulinus responded that the only gift the king could give him was the freedom of all the captives from the city of Nola. The king managed to get all of these captives in Africa gathered together, and sent home with Paulinus on ships loaded with grain.
Gregory then points out the parallel between Paulinus and Christ, who had also taken on the form of a slave so as to free many people from slavery. The existence of this parallel, in a book of dialogues with religious purposes, doesn't in itself indicate that the story is mere fable; but his narration does seem to be the only source we have for the story—Gregory doesn't indicate any source he himself is using. Wikipedia reports that the Vandals did not invade north Africa until 429, two years before Paulinus' death, and only began attacking the Italian peninsula after this time; so the story may not be factual.


What is the test that determines doctrine from discipline? Some of the hubbub around the Synod on the Family in 2015 has been (at least superficially) around whether disallowing civilly remarried couples, without annulled marriages, whose original spouses are still alive from communion is a doctrine (and therefore unchangeable) or a discipline (and potentially malleable) so what makes this part of marriage  doctrine.  Are there other rules concerning marriage that are discipline and not doctrine? Is it possible to have invincible ignorance when it comes to receiving communion in an invalid marriage?

Dogmas are truths proclaimed either directly by God or by God through His Church. That one cannot and should not receive Communion in the state of mortal sin is not a changeable discipline but a dogma of the highest degree, de fide.

The 24th Session of the Council of Trent says:

  Canon VII.—If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony can not be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, can not contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband: let him be anathema.

Now,

adultery is a mortal sin (cf. Matt. 19:9).
Divorcing and remarrying is adultery.
Therefore, divorcing and remarrying is a mortal sin.

He who receives Communion in the state of mortal sin, i.e. "unworthily…shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord. … [He] eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27,29).

Living in sin also causes more sins: scandal, temptation to other spouse to commit adultery, and a grave injustice to the children.


Are the gospel authors who we believe them to be? What I'm wondering is whether the actual authors of the book of John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark are who we believe them to be. I go to a Catholic high school, and in our version of the Bible it says, in the author section for each gospel, something like "traditionally the apostle John", so does that mean it could have been someone else, and we just say that the author was John the Apostle when it wasn't?

I will start a little off-topic as it is relevant to do so.

An answer to this question would not have been easy if there was no early persecution of Christianity. It would have been a lot easier for detractors of Christianity to make a point that all the writings that we have today on which the foundation of Christianity is based upon, were in fact all cooked up and doctored with the help of the political and reigning powers at that time. But the fact is, all the worldly forces were trying to wipe out nascent Christianity by persecution and destroying all their literature. All that we have today has passed through a most turbulent period and has survived under most cruel persecution.  By the time Christians could live a serene living under a favourable reigning emperor, all present day Gospels were already in use , as independent books before they were canonised in this favourable time.

To answer the question:  We don’t have the original documents in our possession of any of the Gospels, thanks to this persecution.  Agnostics raise this point in casting doubt on the authorship of Bible books. But seen from the table below it can be said of any other ancient literature on the surface of this earth  and that too with no attempts of supression. That is the case with every historical writings and we find that evidence for authenticity of Gospel writers is much stronger than any of the other historical books.

Apart from this shortest timeline for the earliest copy, there are other numerous external written sources, which are but only positive indicators (and absolutely nothing negative) in early history, that the gospels were written by the persons to whom they were attributed by the early church (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

A point to note: The two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves neither disciples nor the eyewitnesses is solid indirect clue they were who they were. If early Christian evangelist wanted to acquire credibility for what they were writing (or forging as some claim) and preaching they would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James. And precisely this was what the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did. At least Christians are saying that all the Gospels were written under the guidance of Holy Spirit and not claiming that they were handed down by God Himself or were found buried somewhere in the ground.  Or to think extremely they did not concise all the four gospels in to one book and say that it was written or dictated by Jesus himself.

This link cites the compelling evidence  where it is explained in detail.

Additionally further information for Gospel of Mark is found in this link and Similar readings can be found here for Gospel of Luke and another link for Gospel of Mathew


What record is there of a canon of Scripture having been set at the First Ecumenical Council? According to this synopsis

  As to Judith, he notes that the Council of Nicæa had, contrary to the Hebrew tradition, included it in the Canon of Scripture, and this, with his friends’ requests, had induced him to undertake the labour of emendation and translation.

by the editors of the Nicene and Post-Nicene series, Jerome wrote in his introduction to the Books of Tobit and Judith that that he was including Tobit in his Latin translation because it had been included in the canon by the Council of Nicea.

Assuming (a) that the synopsis is accurate (I can't find the full document); and (b) he means the First (Ecumenical) Council at Nicea in 325 (the second Nicean Council was in 787 - long after Jerome's death), which canons or acts are recorded that refer to the canon of Scripture?  I can find none.

We know from the Apostolic Canons (Canon LXXXV) and from the Canons of the local Council at Carthage in 397, that most of the deuterocanonical books were included in the Old Testament canon, but I can find no record of this being affirmed by the First Ecumenical Council. It also seems odd to me that Carthage would have issued Canons related to the Scriptural canon in 397 if Nicea had already issued such a canon in 325.  It similarly would not have made any sense for the eastern Fathers to have issued the Scriptural canon they did at the Council of Trullo in 692 (which also included the deuterocanonical books), nor for the 7th Ecumenical Council to have issued their Scriptural canon in 787 (which confirmed the Carthage and Trullo canons).

tl;dr: There is no record of the Council of Nicaea defining the Canon of Scripture. It is not clear what Jerome meant.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for the Book of Judith summarizes what we know, stating

  St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because "the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council.

This confirms as you well-observed that the 20 Canons of Nicaea(20 by some countings) do not define the extents of Scripture. Likewise, it is not contained in the Symbol. The Synodal Letter summarizing the acts of the council to the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Cyrenaica does not mention it either. Together, these seem to indicate that the Council of Nicaea did not consider the matter.

We are left to speculate why Jerome stated that the Council accounted Judith as Scripute. One possiblity is that Jerome simply made it up. This is perhaps the least satisfying and does not seem to fit the evidence. Consider what he wrote in his preface to Judith:

  Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your  request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

It seems that Jerome was neither fond of the book nor keen on translating it. Inventing a canon to create more work for himself sounds unlikely. It is also possible, as the CE points out, that Jerome was mistaken about the canons of Nicaea. While not impossible, there is no record of such a false canon. Others have suggested (an unfortunately I cant't remember where I first heard it) that Jerome was speaking of the fifty copyies of the Bible that Constantine ordered to be made. But this theory runs into two significant challenges. Constantine's commision is dated to 331, serveral years after the Council. Second, it is not clear if the Sacred Scriptures ordered by Constantine contained the entire Bible (including the Deuterocanon) or a subset, perhaps the New Testament or Gospels alone. As with the spurious canon, this suggestion is possible but not well supported by evidence.

The CE suggest one other possibility:

  and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council

To me, this seems the most likely -- that one or more of the Nicaea Fathers used quotations from Judith to support an argument. To see my reasoning, consider what Jerome wrote in his Preface to Tobit.

  I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

As with Judith, Jerome does not seem overly thrilled with translating Tobit. Unlike Judith, he agrees to do it because he finds it better to submit to bishops than Pharisees rather than pointing to a canon from Nicaea. While it is possible that a Nicaea set a canon including Judith but excluding Tobit, but that seems unlikely. More likely, some argument during the council used Judith, but Tobit was not relevent at any point. If I might be allowed to continue to speculate, note that the subject of clerical celibacy was discussed. (See also Canon III). Given what Jerome wrote about Judith:

  Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Perhaps the Book of Judith came up in this matter.


Are the notions of good and evil different in Christianity and Islam? In Christianity I would assume that certain things that would be considered "evil" are not considered evil in Islam.

Christianity, goes by the "do unto others" philosophy e.g. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This seems a pretty common philosophy in which you basically try to empathise with people.

So for example, in Christianity it would be seen as "bad" to take sex slaves even in a battle.

However in Islam, it seems that anything goes as long as it is decreed by Allah. There does not seem to be any moral principle about whether something is good or bad. If it is allowed in the Quaran then it is OK to do. One is not told to empathise with the person you are doing something to and consider their feelings.

In this sense is this why some things that certain Islamic sects do is seen as "evil" by Christians? Because Islam does not have a concept of evil?

In Islam does being a "good person" only equate to obeying the Quaran?

Is this the same in Christianity, or is there more of a case of try and be a good person, but that what "good" means, is more a case of being empathetic?

This is from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) entry on Islamic Law (sharia):

  Islam is a lay theocracy. God is head of
  the Islamic community. God alone legislates, and His
  will is carried out by the community of believers. The law
  is what God has made known to the community of believers through revelation to the Prophets (among whom are Moses and Jesus), the last of whom is Muhammad, ‘‘seal
  of the Prophets.’’ The prophets are the obedient instruments of the revelation, passing it on intact to the believing community. In its broadest sense, the law
  encompasses articles of belief, regulating man’s relation to God (religion), as well as rights and obligations regulating man’s relation to his fellow man (law).

  The law is found in scripture and tradition; i.e., in the Quran, which is the sacred
  book of Islam, and in the Tradition of the Prophet Muhammad. God’s revelation ceased with the death of the Prophet.

  A Muslim submits to the law as a precept of faith (the literal meaning of Islām is ‘‘submission’’); in so doing he fulfills his duty toward God. ... Disobedience to the law is a sin committed against God, not only an infringement of the legal order.

  Liberty is the starting point of the law. This is illustrated by the five categories under which the actions and omissions of men are classified: (1) obligatory, (2) recommended, (3) permissible, (4) disapproved, (5) forbidden.

  But liberty cannot be absolute, lest it destroy itself. So the
  function of the law is to set limits on this liberty so as to
  guide it towards the benefit of the individual and society. Good and evil are defined by the law, that is, by God. It is divine voluntarism that characterizes Islamic law; there
  is no question of natural law as a ‘‘supreme reason existing in God,’’ inscribed in the very nature of things. In Islam, there is no question of positive law subordinating itself to divine law and respecting its dictates; they are
  both the same: Islamic positive law is a divine positive law.

  The study of the law became the most respected of all endeavors, assuming a position commensurate with its object: it enabled the community to fulfill the divine precept
  (Qur’ān 3:106) that it ‘‘promote the good and repress evil.’’

Meanwhile, regarding the Catholic doctrine of evil, the same encyclopedia states:

  ‘‘Evil’’ can be defined as that which opposes, or is
  the antithesis of, what is good. There is no precise articulation of the nature of evil in the creeds of the Church, nor is there any explicit or definitive Christian doctrine of evil.

  Traditionally, Christian theologians have referred to the Adamic Fall (Gn 3) for an understanding of the source of evil, the view that evil
  emerges from the misuse of human freedom. While this
  had been foreseen by God, the gift of freedom, nonetheless, was an essential and fundamental gift from God, one that distinguishes humanity from all other creatures and gives man alone the ability to choose good and evil.

  A common division of evil is that into
  metaphysical, physical, and moral. ... In contrast to physical evil, moral evil is that found in a rational and free nature as such. Properly the soul is
  its immediate subject, or more precisely, the will, with its
  power of obeying or disobeying the norms of moral conscience and the divine law. Moral evil is therefore a privation of rectitude required by the natural law, a privation affecting a free will, which through its own fault lacks a
  perfection it ought to have (De malo 2.1–2). ... [M]oral evil results
  from the voluntary activity of an agent who, in depriving
  himself of a perfection to which he is obliged by nature,
  inflicts upon himself a self-mutilation.

With these two texts in mind, and declaring outright my highly incomplete understanding of the topics at hand, there seems to be significant parallels between the two. Both see evil as an act of the will against God. The key difference is in the different degree of codification of these acts into law. Islam seems to have a greater number of religious laws defining evil acts than Christianity. As such, for Islam, the codification seems to be much more "rigid", up to the extent that the legal system must be fully defined by the religious law found in the Quran (and why countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on have legal laws strictly founded in religious law, like theocracies). Notice the same might be the case for some forms of Judaism. Conversely, in Christianity, there is no strict codification of evil acts to the extent of merging these with legal codes (even if this might have been the case in some Christian kingdoms in the past). Similarly, the list of things to be forbidden, derived directly from some written law, seem to be much less than that in Islam.


Mormon understanding of what kind of bodies people have in heaven This question is about the article about Heavenly Father at lds.org which says about God that:

  He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

Some questions I would like to ask about this:

Does this mean that Mormons expect to have bodies of flesh and bones
in heaven?
Or, assuming that God is in the third heaven, is it only those who
gain access to 3rd heaven who end up with bodies of flesh and bones?
Will anyone end up in heaven as a spirit person?
Is the physical body the reason for the expectation to be able to
procreate in heaven?

LDS scriptures can be found here.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I am) believe the following:

1) Yes, we believe that "resurrection" means the reuniting of the spirit with flesh.  "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God..." (Alma 11:43).

2) We believe that all people who were allowed to obtain mortal bodies on this earth will be resurrected.  "We believe man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression" (Article of Faith 12).  See also D&C 88:94-101.  It is worth noting we define a difference between "salvation" (the salvation of the physical body due to Adam's fall, i.e., resurrection) and "exaltation" (the glorification of the individual).  Therefore, in LDS theology, everyone is "saved" but only those who truely have faith in Jesus Christ, obey His commandments, and endure to the end, will be "exalted" to the Celestial Kingdom (a discussion of the Kingdoms is a bit beyond the scope of this answer).

3) Yes and no.  Three perspectives exist in the LDS world as to "heaven" and "hell".  (a) The time between death and resurrection/judgement.  This is time spend in what we colloquially call "the spirit world".  There is a "Spirit Paradise" and a "Spirit Prison".  (Alma 40:11-14)  These can be considered, respectively, heaven and hell.  (b) After judgement, people are sent to (basically) one of four places: The Celestial Kingdom (highest glory), the Terrestrial Kingdom, the Telestial Kingdom, and Outer Darkness (also called "Perdition", a place with no glory).  The line between Outer Darkness and the three other kingdoms can be defined as heaven and hell.  This is specifically supported by the teachings of the Second Death or loss of our Second Estate (Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; Alma 12:16,32; D&C 76:30-49) which separates those in outer darkness from everyone else.  Then there is (c), which is an unfortunate form of elitism in the Church, where people draw the line beneath the Celestial Kingdom.  That's heaven, everywhere else is hell.  It has one scriptual justification, the Celestial Kingdom is where our Heavenly Father dwells, and no where else (D&C 76:62,77).  So, Spirit World, everyone is a Spirit.  After judgement, no spirits.

4) We do not have an answer for this question because there is no scriptual discussion as to how spiritual children are "born."  We know that those who have lived worthy of the Celestial Kingdom will have the privilege of procreation, but we know nothing (and I mean this, NOTHING) about how that happens.


Has Pope Francis indicated a position on the use of genetically modified mosquitoes for the control of Zika? Pope Francis indicated his general position on genetic modification in a May 2015 encyclical (sections 130-136). His position was essentially that each application should be evaluated on its own merits, appropriate environmental risk assessments should be used, the environment should be respected, and that in specific cases (such as the use of GM crops) there is a significant risk that the use of GM organisms could create or exacerbate economic inequalities.

Various technologies are in development or production which are intended to use genetically modified mosquitoes to control human disease such as Zika and dengue (example). In many cases the communities where these releases would occur are primarily Catholic. Has Pope Francis at any point indicated a position specifically on the deliberate release of GM mosquitoes for the control of human diseases?

The Holy Father has not, to my knowledge, released a position on the Zika crisis in Brazil; much less on the experimental use of GM mosquitoes to fight it. The Brazilian Bishops' Conference, on the other hand, released a statement (reported in a Brazilian Catholic news site, in Portuguese) on the Zika crisis, mentioning the need to "wage war" on the mosquito.

They have not publicly commented on the GM mosquito plan, but no bishop has spoken out against it, either.

Here is a translation of the note:

  MESSAGE FROM CNBB ON THE FIGHT AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI

    “so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live.” (Is 38:16b)

  The Pastoral Episcopal Council (CONSEP), from the National Bishops' Conference of Brazil — CNBB, gathered together in Brasília–DF, in the 3rd and 4th days of February 2016, calls upon the whole of the Church in Brazil to continue and intensify her mobilization to combat the mosquito Aedes aegypti, agent for Dengue fever, Zika and Chikungunya virus. With a great collective effort, which involves all sectors of society, we will be able to defeat these diseases that affect, without distinction, the entire Brazilian population.

  The Zika virus deserves special attention due to its probable link to microcephaly, although this has not yet been proven scientifically. The fravity of the situation has caused the World Health Organization to declare the microcephaly and the Zika virus international emergencies. The state of alert, however, must not lead us into panic, as if we were facing an invincible situation, in spite of its extreme gravity. Neither does it justify defending abortion for the microcephaly cases as, unfortunately, is the proposal of certain groups which are organising to take the issue before the Supreme Federal Tribunal in complete disrespect of  the gift of life.

  Let it be guaranteed, urgently, the assistance to those afflicted with these infirmities, particularly to the children who are born with microcephaly and their families. Health, God's gift and everyone's right, must be assured, in the first place, by public administrators. To them falls the implementation of policies which point to a public health system which both is universal and has good quality. In this direction, the Ecumenical Fraternity Campaign for this year contributes a good deal by bringing up the shameful reality of basic sanitation in Brazil. Without an effective national policy for basic sanitation, the whole effort in combatting Aedes aegypti is compromised.

  The commitment of each citizen is also essential to the task of eradicating this evil which defies our institutions. The principle of everything is education and co-responsibility. For that reason, we exhort the leaderships of our ecclesial communities to organise actions which add to the initiatives which intend to put an end to this situation. The actions for which the public sector is responsibe should be demanded and their progress must be accompanied. In celebrations and meetings, may clear and objective orientations be given so as to help people to become conscious of the gravity of the situation and also of the best way to fight these diseases and their agent. With everyone's effort, victory shall not elude us.

  May God, in His infinite mercy, make health spread through all the Earth (cf. Sir 38:8). May Our Lady of Aparecida, mother and patroness of Brazil, help us in our evangelic commitment to promote and defend life.

  Brasília, 4 February 2016

  Dom Sergio da Rocha
  Archbishop of Brasília-DF
  President of CNBB

  Dom Murilo S. R. Krieger
  Archbishop of São Salvador da Bahia-BA
  Vice-presidente of CNBB

  Dom Leonardo Ulrich Steiner
  Auxiliary Bishop of Brasília-DF
  Secretary-General of CNBB


Seeming paradox arising from idea of eternal life Here is one of the things about the idea of eternal life that I don't understand and that seems paradox to me:

If a human has no existence before having been begot by his parents, yet if a human has then potentially infinitely long existence in eternal life, not bringing each extra potential human life into existence would seem to amount to an infinitely large loss. It's quite a tall order.

Why could we justify not making children all (and I mean all) the time? How could we bear each moment when it brings yet another responsibility of potentially infinite consequence: should one (or does one have to) launch yet another human life into  eternal being? If so, even having dozens of children would not seem to be good enough. And what then about related moral issues such as rape, etc.?

What does theology have to say about this on a fundamental level and how does it solve the seeming dilemma around this?

If we consider Jeremiah 1:4&5 we are told that God forms the child in the mother's womb. Therefore if God forms the child it is he who determines who will and who will not be born. Not always is pregnancy the result of intimacy, and so that alone should be enough evidence that the birth (or intended birth) of any child is a decision made by God, and not by us. We must never assume God is not in charge of all facets of life, or that we mere mortals can in any way determine anything.

Please note in 1st Samuel that Hannah was barren and that God gave a child after she implored him and also vowed to give Samuel back to the Lord.

We are entrusted with children by God, and we should as did Hannah, endeavor to give them back to God by doing our best to have them give their lives to Christ.


Why couldn't Adam and Eve keep both commandments? I hope this question is unique here, but I assure you I have searched and have not yet seen it. (This question is close, but not quite the same.)

Adam and Eve were given two commandments: 1) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2) not eat of the forbidden fruit. From what I understand, some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

Within the scope of those Christian denominations which view the two commandments as both impossible to keep while in the Garden of Eden: Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

...some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

The short answer
There is no Biblical support for this.

The long answer
If some Christian denominations believe this, is it extra-biblical, e.g. Mormons, and so explanation will likely vary widely. (Actually, AFAIK, Mormonism is the only denomination that believes this.)
Perhaps you consider this the justification:

Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

But that is not necessarily true. Man was not infallable, and remember: the devil played a hand here too. It's not really temptation unless you can make the wrong choice.

FYI, Greg Bala said:

This question basically boils down to these types of questions:

Why did (how could) God create a creature that could choose poorly?

Did God know what we will fail?

Why didn't God create us without what is necessary to choose well?

While I do not believe these questions are what you are asking, these are the more commonly asked paradoxes/concerns about Adam and Eve.


Christ is true God and true Man... from when? According to the catholic doctrine, Jesus is "true God and true human." That nature of Him was taken in order to redeem the humanity of sin.

My question is:

  Since he is God since all times, did he become true human in the incarnation or he was already man before it?

If He has became human there, and now He is human also nowadays due to His simple and eternal attributes, excent (indifferent, alien, unaffected, etc) of time and space:

Wouldn't He has to been human since all times since He lives in eternity?

Since he is God since all times, did he become true human in the incarnation or he was already man before it?
No, He did not always have a human nature.
As St. John writes in the Gospel:

John 1:1,14 (DRB)
...the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

St. Paul writes to the church at Philippi concerning the humility of the Son of God in becoming flesh for our salvation:

Philippians 2:5-8
For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

The Hypostatic Union
The Hypostatic Union is the doctrine that the two natures of Christ (the eternal divine, and the temporal human nature) are united in only one Person: the divine Word or Son of God.
This is why we can say "the First and the Last," and "the Lord of Glory," (1 Corinthians 2:8) that is, God, "died:"

Revelation 1:17-18
And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and [am] alive, [though] was dead, and behold I am [alive] for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.

And it's why Jesus can say, though not true of His human nature, but His divine only:

John 8:58 (cf. Exodus 3:14)
... Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was [made], I am.

That is, simply put, anything belonging to either nature belongs to the one divine Person: the Word or Son of God. Anything predicated of either nature is predicated of the Son of God. Or, anything the Person does in either nature, He does as the Divine Person: there is no human person in Jesus Christ, only one Divine Person with two natures.
Therefore, the answer to your question

Wouldn't He have to have been human since all time, since He lives in eternity?

is no, since the natures are distinct, and are not confused nor admixed.  Only the human nature of Christ died, properly speaking. Only the Divine nature of Christ created all things. But Christ (i.e. a Person) indeed did both in truth.

A Pertinent Example
A very simple doctrine which gets to the heart of the issue is the doctrine that Mary, Jesus' mother, is the mother of God (it is, fundamentally, a Christological doctrine).
In the fourth century, a heretic named Nestorius made a divison, rather than a simple distinction, between the two natures of Christ, so as to assert that we may not properly call Mary, his mother, the mother of God, but only Christ.
(emphasis mine)
The heresy is summarized by the Ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople's condemnation of it in A.D. 533 (Sentence Against the Three Chapters of Nestorius):

The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy
of Nestorius… and all those who might later ... adopt the same
opinions as he held ... They express these falsehoods against the true
dogmas of the Church, offering worship to two Sons, trying to divide
that which cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth
the offense of the worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly
spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.

Even earlier than this, and directly addressing a specific heretical product of his false Christology (that Mary was only the mother of a human nature, and not of the divine Person of God the Word), the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) issues the following anathema (Session I, Canon 1):

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that
therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God [Θεοτόκος],
inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written,
"The Word was made flesh"] let him be anathema.

(emphasis mine)
What this goes to prove is that clearly Jesus was born, but this particular heretic asserted that He was not personally God who was born (the fallacious argumenting being that God was never born; yet in that He had this human nature in addition to the divine, He was born). Whereas, as the condemnation notes, Mary's Son is Immanuel (God with us), and the eternal Word of God made flesh. In this sense, she most definitely is the mother of God.


From what biblical basis can it be argued 'God heals damaged emotions or physiological problems through the Bible'? By damaged emotions or physiological problems I am not referring to unusual things like the fear of the outdoors. I am referring to more common problems that many of us have, including: excessive irritability, perfectionism, defensiveness, fear, guilt, worry, etc.

The phrase 'damaged emotions' is obviously not part of the vocabulary of Biblical times. Therefore, my question is 'What Bible references can be used to support the claim that healing for emotions can be obtained through God's word and what would that 'healing' therefore mean?

Here are a few verses that might shed some light on the question (sorry, being a new user, I can only give you links for context for the first two due to SPAM protection on stackexchange):

The book of Psalms, Chapter 27, Verse 1

"The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"

The book of Psalms, Chapter 56, Verses 3-4

"What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.  In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 10

"Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 13

"For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee."

The book of Psalms, Chapter 34, Verse 17-19

"The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all."

The book of Psalms, Chapter 94, Verse 18-19

"When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up.
In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul."

The book of Proverbs, Chapter 18, Verse 1

"The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 40, Verse 31

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 4

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 13

"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."

The way in which positive emotions seem to be created and negative ones eliminated seems to be mainly through the belief that one is doing God's will, and that it is the way to salvation.


Why did Jesus use parables to teach? At first, Jesus taught by direct instruction and expounding the scriptures. For example, Luke 2:46-47:

  46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
  47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

Also, Matthew 5:3-5:

  3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
  5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But then, as He got closer to the end of His life, He began to teach in parables. Why?

James E. Talmage discusses this in his book "Jesus the Christ" (read online here)
An excerpt from this chapter:

To the chosen and devoted followers who came asking the Master why He had changed from direct exposition to parables, He explained that while it was their privilege to receive and understand the deeper truths of the gospel, “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” as He expressed it, with people in general, who were unreceptive and unprepared, such fulness of understanding was impossible. To the disciples who had already gladly accepted the first principles of the gospel of Christ, more should be given; while from those who had rejected the proffered boon, even what they had theretofore possessed should be taken away. “Therefore,” said He, “speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
...
There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were too weak in faith and unprepared in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word.
Another example of the merciful adaptation of the word of truth to the varied capacities of the people who heard the parables is found in the psychological fact, that the incidents of an impressive though simple story will live, even in minds which for the time being are incapable of comprehending any meaning beyond that of the common-place story itself. … And then, when time and experience, including suffering perhaps, had prepared them for deeper thought, they would find the living kernel of gospel truth within the husk of the simple tale.
(Talmage)

In short, listeners of varying spiritual maturity could be taught that which they needed to hear.


What do Evangelical Protestants mean by "receive Jesus"? In conservative Evangelical Churches, one often hears exhortations to become "saved" by "accepting" or "receiving" Jesus "into your heart", often accompanied by an invitation to pray a special prayer of salvation.

According to Evangelical Biblical interpretation, what exactly, in Biblical terms, does it mean to "receive" Jesus into your heart?

For Evangelicals, "receiving Jesus" can be considered to be functionally equivalent to one or more of the following:

Regeneration
Being born again
Receiving the (indwelling) Holy Spirit
Being justified by faith
Being adopted into the family of God
Being saved
Conversion
Making a decision
Praying through

Evangelicalism is somewhat of a moveable feast and different Evangelicals will have their own favoured terminology - sometimes treating the other terms listed here as synonyms, and sometimes emphasizing distinctions between them.

This doctrine stands at the core of Evangelicalism, and as such there are many more scriptural passages that have been cited in support of it than is appropriate to reproduce here. Nevertheless, here are ten passages that are very commonly linked with it:

Ezekiel 36:26-27

  I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

John 3:3

  Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

John 14:16-17

  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Romans 5:1-2

  Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

Romans 8:8-10

  Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.

Romans 8:14-16

  For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.

Romans 10:9-10

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

2 Corinthians 5:17

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

Colossians 1:26-27

  the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Revelation 3:20

  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.


What Christian companies, today, have no name by which they are known? In Revelation chapters one to three, there is a woman named Jezebel, whom Christ marks out as impenitent, Revelation 2:21; there is a sect, the Nicolaitans, whose deeds, Revelation 2:6, and doctrine, Revelation 2:15, Christ says he hates and he identifies them as being in both Ephesus and Pergamos; and there is a synagogue where falsely named 'Jews' meet whom Christ identifies in Philadelphia, Revelation 3:9, and he calls them liars.

But of the faithful, Christ mentions only one, in Pergamos - Antipas, who is deceased, a martyr, Revelation 2:13.

In these three chapters, He names no other individual and he names no other company by any communal name. He just states what town they are in.

If one wanted to go and meet them, one has no address (other than the town) and no description other than their characteristics - which he describes.

My question is - are there any towns in the world, today, where a company of Christians meet together, yet have no identifying 'label' (other than the name of Christ, of course) ?

The only ‘label’ that matters is the ‘label’ of Christian.  A Christian is a person who belongs to Christ Jesus and who obeys Him.  Denominational labels are man-made and of no importance.  Jesus knows who belong to Him and His Church is not a denomination or a building but is a world-wide living entity made up of believers.  The short answer to your question is yes, there are lots of Christians around the world who meet regularly to worship God and study the Bible but who do not belong to any particular denomination.
A denomination is a church organization that exercises some sort of authority over the local churches that comprise it.  There are many Christians who meet together, in private homes or in rented halls, who do not have any identifying ‘label.’  Often, they are categorised as being non-denominational, which simply means they do not come under the authority of a specific denomination.   Non-denominational should never be confused with inter-denominational which is a church or an organization that incorporate different practices from various denominations.  The measure of any church, whether inside or out of a denomination, is not how it is organized nor what name it is called, but rather how faithfully it adheres to the teachings of the Word of God.
It is important to remember that the Body of Christ is interdenominational. We may choose labels for ourselves and others—and such labels have their place—but Jesus never assigned denominational tags. He said, “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). The Body of Christ is made up of “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21), and the gospel of salvation by grace through faith unites all born-again believers who belong to Christ Jesus.
As for the events, persons and churches recorded in the first three chapters of Revelation, I found a useful article, part of which says this:

"A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense. We are not to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.
A simple outline for the book of Revelation is found in Revelation 1:19. In chapter one, the risen and exalted Christ is speaking to John. Christ tells John to “write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” The things John had already seen are recorded in chapter 1. The “things which are” (that were present in John's day) are recorded in chapters 2–3 (the letters to the churches). The “things that will take place” (future things) are recorded in chapters 4–22."  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-Revelation.html

Clearly, there is a warning to all Christians today against falling into sin and/or following false teachers.  Christians are identified by their words and deeds, by holding fast to the truth of God's Word and by showing Christ-like love to all persons.  By their fruits (the fruit of the Spirit) they will be known.


When was the number of the beast, 666, first identified as referring to Emperor Nero? The belief that the number of the beast in Revelation, 666, refers to Nero is a common theory now. When was this identification first suggested?

The first time Nero is directly interpreted as 666 or 616 was in 1831.

  The riddle seems to have been forgotten almost as soon as it was written and not solved until 1831 (when it first was proposed), seemingly because the number was assumed to be Greek or Latin—and not a Hebraic one.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

About 270 Victorinus mentions Nero in his commentary on Revelation chapter 17, but when it comes to 666 he says the following.

  “His number is the name of a man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”] As they have it reckoned from the Greek characters, they thus find it among many to be τειταν, for τειταν has this number, which the Gentiles call Sol and Phœbus; and it is reckoned in Greek thus: τ three hundred, ε five, ι ten, τ three hundred, α one, ν fifty,—which taken together become six hundred and sixty-six. For as far as belongs to the Greek letters, they fill up this number and name; which name if you wish to turn into Latin, it is understood by the antiphrase DICLUX, which letters are reckoned in this manner: since D figures five hundred, I one, C a hundred, L fifty, V five, X ten,—which by the reckoning up of the letters makes similarly six hundred and sixty-six, that is, what in Greek gives τειταν, to wit, what in Latin is called DICLUX; by which name, expressed by antiphrases, we understand Antichrist, who, although he be cut off from the supernal light, and deprived thereof, yet transforms himself into an angel of light, daring to call himself light.2304 Moreover, we find in a certain Greek codex αντεμος, which letters being reckoned up, you will find to give the number as above: α one, ν fifty, τ three hundred, ε five, μ forty, ο seventy, ς two hundred,—which together makes six hundred and sixty-six, according to the Greeks. Moreover, there is another name in Gothic of him, which will be evident of itself, that is, γενσήρικος, which in the same way you will reckon in Greek letters: γ three, ε five, ν fifty, σ two hundred, η eight, ρ a hundred, ι ten, κ twenty, ο seventy, ς also two hundred, which, as has been said above, make six hundred and sixty-six.

Irenaeus (130-202) discusses 666 and 616 in chapters XXIX and XXX of Against the Heresies Book V, but he never mentions Nero. Here is an excerpt.

  It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed “Titan” by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.” We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.


What is the biblical evidence against the idea that God, pre-Fall, always intended Jesus' crucifixion? The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which God placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17) has long been acknowledged by Christians as a symbol of humanity's free will. Having placed this here, it seems God could have always been aware of a (perhaps) inevitable progression of sin and a consequent need for redemption. From Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:20, and The Hero's Journey, for example, I've concluded that God had always known that Jesus would be crucified.

New personal evidence from "The Star of Bethlehem" (2012): the constellations align with remarkable symbolism around the time of Jesus' conception, birth, and death, indicating intention of divine timing in concert with the cosmos (Psalm 19:1-4). *spoiler alert* In order for such clock-work-type timing, "That means that from the very moment that God flung the universe into existence, He had to know exactly when he would enter the human race as a man and when the Messiah would expire on the cross.".

My edited question is this: what groups believe that Christ's sacrifice (or Israel's long history, for that matter) was never part of God's original plan for humanity, and what do they claim as the biblical basis for that idea?

This is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so it is how they interpret these scriptures. Since you asked for a Biblical basis, not the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, the reasoning behind this interpretation is also included in this answer.

Got created Adam and Eve to be good, not bad. So there was no wickedness within them at the time of their creation, otherwise that would mean God intentionally put wickedness inside them. That would be contrary to the principal at James 1:13 "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."

The placement and name of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, along with the command not to eat from it does not suggest God already knew they would choose a path of sin. Instead it suggests he knew they would need to decide for themselves if they would accept his sovereignty or not, that they were capable of choosing either path, and that this was a critical issue facing humanity. This was not an unreasonable command. It is not like he made them starve and then placed a tree in front of them and told them not to eat from it. In preface to this command, he said "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction." (Genesis 2:16). He was not trying to trick them into going down a path of sin and death. The idea was to have them decide if they appreciated their heavenly father and all he had done for them, and express this appreciation through loving obedience, or if they would selfishly reject his authority. The choice was theirs to make, but he still did many things to nudge them toward choosing to obey him, which was the loving thing to do. For example, he gave them the life they had. God even created Eve as a wonderful companion for Adam, and Adam was so happy with this that he waxed poetic (Genesis 2:23). God placed them in a beautiful garden and gave them meaningful, fulfilling work to do (naming the animals, taking care of the earth, and filling the earth with their offspring) (Genesis 2:19, 20; Genesis 2:15; Genesis 1:28). Consider all God gave them prior to having them make a choice. Also consider his words at Deuteronomy 30:19 where God is pleading with the Israelites to choose life.

If Adam and Eve had chosen a path of obedience they would have produced perfect offspring, not sinful ones (Romans 5:12). It was only after mankind's fall into sin that the first prophecy involving Jesus' sacrifice came about, at Genesis 3:15. This does not mean God already planned for things to play out that way. It just means that man's actions, or anyone else's for that matter, cannot prevent God's purpose from being fulfilled (Isaiah 55:10, 11). Immediately after mankind's sin seemed to threaten God's original purpose for the earth to be a home for humanity, filled with perfect, happy people that live forever, he set things in motion to rectify the situation, and assured us of the outcome (Genesis 3:15).

It is true that details about Jesus' birth, ministry, and death were foretold in the scriptures. But this does not mean those details were already known prior to mankind's fall into sin. Whatever God does or does not choose to foresee, and whatever implications it may or may not have about our free will and the paths we choose, we can say he does have control over his ability to see into the future, as opposed to this being an out of control ability. Free will is a gift he has given us, and he makes sure to use his abilities in a way that does not infringe upon this gift. Our choices would be meaningless without that gift.

For more detailed information see this, which also explains a different interpretation of 1 Peter 1:20 than what might more readily come into a reader's mind. However, explaining that scripture gets into a whole other branch of our beliefs that is outside the scope of this topic.

References:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/draw-close/wisdom/divine-wisdom-jehovah-god/
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/free-will-in-the-bible/
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/gods-promises-for-humans/


Do the reformed theology adherents believe that a believer should not "converse with" or "pray to" or worship the Holy Spirit? I was in a Reformed house church and heard them making a statement of faith after the meeting. In that, they wrote that only the Father and the Son are to be worshipped and prayed to. They believed that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God himself but insisted that He should not be worshipped or be prayed to. Is that the reformed doctrine?

I found it strange because Paul says:

2 Corinthians 12:8 Three times I begged the Lord for this, that it might depart from me.

and

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

Also, it says in:

Acts 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

So the Spirit speaks to Peter, but is it only one-way communication? Is the believer not supposed to speak or pray to the Holy Spirit?

Answers also welcomed from non-reformed people about such exempting of the Holy Spirit.

Reformed theology maintains the full deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, so that there is no inferiority attached to the Holy Spirit that would result in the kind of subordination that the ‘Reformed House Church’ you mention makes in its statement of faith.  What they claim seems to be but one step removed from ancient movements such as the pneumatomachians, or Macedonians, who denied the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. They were refuted by the Cappadocian ‘Father’ Basil who I will quote later.

At the outset, I will quote from Reformed theologian Michael Horton in his 2011 seminal work, “Pilgrim Theology” (Zondervan, abridged from ‘The Christian Faith’). It is important to understand why, in this century, some Christian groups have moved so far away from the reverence for the blessed Holy Spirit that was held by the early Church, that we get statements such as the one you have stated in your question. Once we grasp what the current theological state is of apparently ‘Reformed’ groups who verbally claim the Holy Spirit to be divine and personal, yet say he is not worthy of worship, then we will see why they are but one step removed from ancient groups denounced by the ‘early Church Fathers’.

In his chapter on the Holy Trinity, subheading “III. Practical Benefits of the Doctrine of the Trinity” Michael Horton writes:

  “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit stride across the chapters of
  redemptive history toward the goal whose origin lies in an eternal
  pact between them. We worship, pray, confess, and sing our laments and
  praises to the Father, in the Son, by the Spirit.  We are baptized and
  blessed in the name [singular] of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
  Spirit… We are adopted as children, not of a unipersonal God, but of
  the Father, as coheirs with his Son as Mediator, united to the Son and
  his ecclesial body by the Spirit…  As we noted earlier, “to the Father
  is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and
  wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered
  disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and
  efficacy of that activity.” [Calvin ‘Institutes’ 1.13.18.]  No less
  than the Father are the Son and the Spirit our Creator and preserver.
  No less than the Son are the Father and the Spirit our Savior and
  Lord. No less than the Father and the Son is the Spirit ‘worshipped
  and glorified.’ “One of the reasons that many Christians have found
  little practical relevance of this doctrine for their lives is that
  our public worship – and therefore private piety – has become
  increasingly emptied of Trinitarian references. As we’ve seen, one of
  the reasons for the controversies and greater refinements in
  formulating this doctrine is that monotheistic Jews were now offering
  worship to Christ and the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father. In
  addition to the New Testament formulas for baptism and benedictions,
  ancient prayers and hymns planted the Trinitarian faith deep in the
  hearts of Christian people across many times and places. Christians
  throughout the ages didn’t just talk about the Trinity (which still,
  more often than not, happens today), but to the Father, in the Son, by
  the Spirit. “Many forms of worship today, however, have dispensed with
  these rich resources without replacing them with equally Trinitarian
  elements… To the extent that our experience is not Trinitarian, it is
  not properly Christian. One of my goals in t his book is to explore
  the relevance of the Trinity not only across the whole system of
  Christian doctrine, but in our lives as worshipers and disciples of
  Jesus Christ. “Many of the differences in faith and practice between
  Christian denominations and traditions can be attributed at least in
  part to a tendency to overlook this mutuality of the three persons in
  every work. It is not surprising that liberalism reduced the Trinity
  to the Father (as in Adolf von Harnack’s oft-repeated formula, ‘the
  universal fatherhood of God and universal brotherhood of man’) and
  therefore has had little interest in redemption by a divine Savior or
  its supernatural application by the Spirit. Deism needed only an
  Architect, not a Contractor and Builder. The tendency to focus on
  Christ apart from the Father and the Spirit has also led to a
  reductionistic view of redemption that is disconnected from creation
  and consummation. Placing the Spirit at the center – often in reaction
  against these other tendencies – one can easily treat the Spirit as a
  freelance operator rather than the one whose mission is to shine the
  spotlight on the Father’s word concerning his Son’s work. Throughout
  this volume we will be fleshing out what it means to say that in every
  external work of the Trinity all things are done by the Father, in the
  Son, through the Spirit.” (pages 103 to 104)

This lengthy quote shows why apparently ‘Reformed’ groups who verbally claim the Holy Spirit to be divine and personal, yet say he is not worthy of worship are but one step removed from ancient groups denounced by the ‘early Church Fathers’.

Here now is a little bit about the Cappadocian Father Basil the Great, in Roger E. Olson’s book, “The Story of Christian Theology” (InterVarsity Press 1999)

  “Finally, Basil turned to Christian experience of salvation and argued
  against the subordinationists of the Spirit that since the Holy Spirit
  effects our salvation, he cannot be anything but God. Only God can
  save… In all things, then, the Holy Spirit is incapable of being
  parted from the Father and the Son.  It is the Spirit who applies
  God’s salvation to our lives… Of course, Basil was more than willing
  to allow a certain kind of subordination of the Spirit to the Father
  as the Father is the eternal fount of all divinity from whom the Son
  is generated and the Spirit proceeds. The analogy is to the sun and
  its light and warmth. The latter originate in and from the former
  without being inferior or ‘after’ it. So the Son of God and the Spirit
  of God are God’s eternal counterparts sharing in his very being and
  glory while being subordinate in position but not in being to God the
  Father…  In ‘On The Holy Spirit’ [Basil] declared theological war on
  those who would in any way deny the Spirit: “But we will not slacken
  in our defence of the truth. We will not cowardly abandon the cause.
  The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that
  the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father” (Basil ‘De Spiritu
  Sancto’, 10.25) “Why (Olson continues) “was the deity of the Holy
  Spirit so important to Basil? … Basil would cry that to deny the
  Spirit’s deity is to place a question mark beside the deity of the
  Father and the Son. In Scripture as in worship as in personal
  Christian experience, the Holy Spirit is always associated with them
  as sharing equal honor and dignity, and equal honor and dignity imply
  equal nature. One cannot be ontologically subordinated to the others
  without that impinging on the honor and dignity and glory of all the
  persons of the Godhead.”

To say that the Holy Spirit is God, yet to decline to worship the Holy Spirit, is to make a mockery of the full deity of the Holy Spirit. It amounts to mere verbal declarations of honour, that are without any substance. I would say that Reformed literature is replete with evidence that the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped, prayed to, and addressed with all due reverence as to the Father and as to the Son. I have given but two recent examples of such Reformed literature (one of which harks back to the view of the Cappadocian Father, Basil.)  I hope this indicates that the Reformed house church you allude to is on very shaky theological ground indeed, if it wishes to retain its ‘Reformed’ status.


Has the notion of "legitimacy" been abandoned in the Catholic Church? This isn't a question about pastoral advice, but it is being asked on behalf of a friend who is worried that her children will become illegitimate if her marriage is annulled and all I can find to help her is the Code of Canon Law and the Catholic Encyclopedia, which seem to suggest that the kids would be illegitimate if both she and her husband were found to be invalid ministers of the sacrament. Although, as Andrew pointed out to me in the comments, this is more of a red herring as the Code of Canon law is modern and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not.  I only mention it here because this is as far as I got - and substantiates the rumors that I have heard about illegitimacy.

However, this is not about whether they'd be illegitimate, it's about what is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church?  That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?

What is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church? That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?

As far as I can see in the Canons and the Catechism, there is no disadvantage or burden. I can find nowhere in either where it says that the sacraments are to be denied the illegitimate. This might be expected: Canon Law strives to be compassionately just (or justly compassionate) and it's manifestly unjust and uncompassionate to deny a child the ministry of the Church because of an act which it could have absolutely no control over. A child is a gift, and a person from the moment of conception (CCC 2378): how can the Church deny a child of God who is blameless for their situation?

However, the notion of legitimacy hasn't entirely been abandoned, because Canon 1137 specifically defines it. The Canons do not define illegitimacy, nor do they specify what happens when marriages are invalid or annulled (except by implication in Canon 1137).

In the instant case, it appears that the marriage is at least a putative marriage — one that has all the signs of being the real thing. Canon 1137 unequivocally states that children born of a putative marriage are legitimate. Given that there appears to be no way of becoming illegitimate, presumably the annulment will have no such effect. (But your correspondent will need to ask the question of those dealing with the annulment, as they will have access to all the circumstances.)

This is similar to statute law, at least in England. Divorce does not make legitimate children illegitimate. There is a difference in statute law between an invalid marriage and an impeded marriage: a lawful marriage where there is invalid intent does produce a marriage, but can be ended. A marriage where there is a legal impediment is impossible, and is void ab initio; and its children are statutorily illegitimate. However, it appears that the Church would consider its children canonically legitimate.


During Catholic confirmation, what criteria should be used to choose a saint? When being confirmed in the Catholic Church it is customary to choose a saint.  What criteria should we use to choose this saint?  Should one choose a saint they like?  Would like to be like?  Or one that has strengths where I have weakness?  What guidance has the magisterium given for this process?

Your instincts are good. I found this answer here:

  The custom of adopting a saint’s name at confirmation was done in
  order to adopt the saint as a special heavenly patron or to honor a
  saint to whom one had a special devotion. In short, the purpose was to
  give the confirmand the opportunity to develop his understanding of
  and reliance on the communion of saints.

In my own case I chose Joseph as my confirmation name because we had a neighbor that was a good Catholic role model named Joseph (he was our boy scout troop leader) and I also thought Mary's husband didn't get enough devotion.

Apparently some parishes no longer ask you to chose a confirmation name. I think that's sad. Misplaced liturgical "reform".


Information on how the early Christians prepared and/or fled from the destruction of Jerusalem? Does anyone have any information regarding how the early Christians prepared or handled the destruction of Jerusalem? Such as how long before hand they fled and what did they take and where did they go and what did they do afterwards?

Please site sources if you have them as I am very interested in reading more into this topic. Thank you very much!

Information on how the early Christians prepared or fled from the destruction of Jerusalem?

Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella.

  Flight to Pella

  The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. The flight to Pella probably did not include the Ebionites.

  The authenticity of this tradition has been a much debated question since 1951 when S. G. F. Brandon in his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church provided strong arguments against it, arguing that the Jewish Christians would have been allied to their compatriots, the Zealots; only after the destruction of the Jewish Christian community would Christianity have emerged as a universalist religion. The Christian-Zealot alliance has hardly been taken seriously in theology, but the historicity of the flight to Pella has been controversial ever since.

  Ancient sources

    The people of the Church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea…" — Eusebius, Church History 3, 5, 3

    This heresy of the Nazoraeans exists in Beroea in the neighbourhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokaba (Chochabe in Hebrew). From there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said." — Epiphanius, Panarion 29,7,7-8

    For after all those who believed in Christ had generally come to live in Perea, in a city called Pella of the Decapolis of which it is written in the Gospel that it is situated in the neighbourhood of the region of Batanaea and Basanitis, Ebion's preaching originated here after they had moved to this place and had lived there." — Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 2, 7

  So Aquila, while he was in Jerusalem, also saw the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith and working great signs, healings, and other miracles. For they were such as had come back from the city of Pella to Jerusalem and were living there and teaching. For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emigrants in Pella, the city above mentioned in Transjordania. And this city is said to be of the Decapolis." — Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 15

As for how and when this happened, we may never truly know, even if it is true at all.

  A PROPOSED SCENARIO OF JERUSALEM CHRISTIAN ACTIONS AS THE ROMANS THREATENED THE CITY

  Did the Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella just before the Romans destroyed their city? There is no way to know for sure. We can only deal in probabilities. If we accept as reliable the accounts of Eusebius and others, the issue is settled. If, as did Brandon, one begins by doubting those records and seeks reasons for supporting that skepticism, the answer to the question will most certainly be, "No," for when evidence is incomplete, selected and biased reading and interpretations of data can usually yield the desired conclusion.

  Between these two are other options, including evaluating carefully both the primary sources and their critics. In addition, beyond the direct evidence there may be circumstantial, which although a bit oblique and supplementary, may be relevant. It is evidence of this type that we seek to add to the investigation of the Pella tradition.

  Perhaps the situation and unfolding events were something like what follows. The Jerusalem Christian community was centered on the southwest hill of Jerusalem, now called Mt. Zion. In all probability it was here they had eaten the last passover meal with Jesus, were together when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and may have constructed their own synagogue. This location, although containing such "up scale" residences as the palace of the high priest, the Christians probably shared it with others who were a bit out of the mainstream of Jerusalem life Jewish groups, such as the Essenes.

  If indeed the Jerusalem Christians fled the city, we do not know whether they did so in mass, in small groups, or as individuals. Furthermore, the time of this exodus has been variously placed. Most likely are following the Jewish victory over Cestius Gallus (A.D.66/67), or in the period following the temporary withdrawal of Vespasian to await developments in Rome (A.D. 68/69). The latter would seem more logical to me. They would have already seen Jerusalem "surrounded by armies" (cf. Luke 21:20) and presumably been free to travel toward Jericho since the Tenth Legion had pretty much left the area and was already established on the Mount of Olives; in any case, at this point in time Roman military activities had been halted.

  They probably left the city through the Essene (or possibly the Tekoa) Gate, into Hinnon and on to the Kidron Valley. Although it is likely they would have avoided the Roman road, there were a number of more secluded routes through wadis and other paths open to them. This had been an escape route used before, for example by kings David and Zedekiah, and into the plain south of Jericho (the Buqeiah).

  Upon arriving in the Jordan Valley the friendly terrain to the north and the desire to move away from Jerusalem could have invited travel in that direction. As they neared Scythopolis they crossed the Jordan and settled in the region of Pella. Later, some remained in the Pella-Decapolis region and formed the nucleus of both the orthodox and heretical Christians found there in following centuries. Others returned not only to Jerusalem, to their old area on the southwest hill.

  Those who returned brought with them a bridge between the original Jewish Christian community and the predominantly Gentile church which had arisen by the beginning of the second century. The Jerusalem-Jewish Church, weakened though it was, provided continuity with the historical Jesus and the apostles for wider Church. There presence and their ties with the past made it unnecessary for Christianity to be "virtually reborn." The "Mother Church," frail from her experiences and limited by her environment, was back to help guide her children and grandchildren in the narrow way, the way of the truth and the faith which, through her had been "once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). - Did Jerusalem Christians Flee to Pella?

Map of the Decapolis showing the location of Pella.

A more diverse series of archeological pictures of Pella, Jordan can be seen here.

  Pella (Ancient Greek: Πέλλα, Hebrew: פחל) is found in northwestern Jordan, at the modern town of Tabaqat Fahl, طبقة فحل) 27.4 km (17 miles) south of the Sea of Galilee. Pella represents one of circa ten Decapolis cities that were founded during the Hellenistic period and became powerful under Roman jurisdiction. With a history extending back into the Bronze Age, Pella expanded to its largest state during the Roman period. It is located in the Jordan Valley, 130 km (80 miles) north of Amman, and is half an hour by car from Irbid, in the north of the country. Today, the city's sizable collection of ruins are excavated by archaeologists, and attract thousands of tourists annually.

  First Christians: the "flight to Pella"

  From what is known as the "flight to Pella", around the time of the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, a Jewish sect of Nazarenes made their way to Pella and settled in the city, which thus became a Jewish Christian hub, during the early days of Christianity. According to Epiphanius, the disciples had been miraculously told by Christ to abandon Jerusalem because of the siege it was about to undergo. Epiphanius claims that after the destruction, some returned to Jerusalem. Similarly to Epiphanius, Eusebius of Caesarea recounts how Pella was a refuge for Jerusalem Christians who were fleeing the First Jewish–Roman War in the 1st century CE. Pella is alleged to have been the site of one of Christianity's earliest churches. According to Historian Edward Gibbon, the early Church of Jerusalem fleed to Pella after the ruin of the temple staying their until their return to Zion during the reign of Emperor Hadrian making it a pilgrimage site for early Christians and modern Christians today. - Pella, Jordan

They were fortunate to have fled, for at one point Titus was crucifying some 500 Jews a day after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, according to Josephus.

Image of mass execution by crucifixion, somewhat similar to the ones used by Romans.


Where does the Old Testament mention "the devil"? Yesterday, New York Magazine published an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in which is he quoted as saying that he believes "the Devil" has given up taking possession of humans to make them sin, in favor of causing them to be atheists.  His reasoning is as follows:

  I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

So, to him, I guess, the fact that we don't see demonic possession on a regular basis, yet people are sinning and not believing, proves that The Devil is changing tactics - because in what Christians call the New Testament he is a regular feature.  But, as far as I know, there isn't much of an occurrence of "the Devil" in TaNa"Ch, or what Christians refer to as the "Old Testament".

I know what the standard Jewish approach is regarding "the Devil" (short version: he doesn't get a mention, and we don't believe in such a being - at least not in the way commonly talked about by Christian preachers). But according to the Christian view (across most denominations, as far as I can tell), there is some being called "The Devil" who possesses people and causes them to sin, etc. Where is he in what you call the Old Testament, and why would he just suddenly appear later?

While שטן (satan) does indeed mean "adversary," I doubt that every occurrence in the Tanakh of the word שטן should be understood as a (human) adversary as opposed to the angelic adversary whom most Christians refer to as "the devil" (from Gr. ὁ διάβολος). In fact, this isn't the standard in Jewish literature either.

For example, in the Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Massekhet Sanhedrin 95a, Gemara, it is written,

  יומא חד נפק לשכור בזאי אתא שטן ואדמי ליה כטביא פתק ביה גירא ולא מטייה...

that is,

  One day, he (King David) went out to Shekhor Bezai. Satan came and appeared before him as a deer. He shot an arrow at him, but it did not reach him...

Now, based on the reasoning that שטן always means a human adversary, we're forced to believe that the rabbis of the Gemara wrote that a man appeared as a deer in front of David. Obviously that idea is nonsensical. Elsewhere in Jewish literature, Satan is said to assume the form of a bird (כציפרתא; San. 107a), a woman (כאיתתא; Kid. 81a), a poor man (כעניא; Kid. 81a), etc. Therefore, this particular שטן is no mere man.

Coincidentally, the New Testament refers to Satan as "the old serpent" (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος) (Rev. 12:9, 20:2), an allusion to the serpent in Gan Eden (Gen. 3). This Greek phrase has its equivalent in the Hebrew phrase הנחש הקדמוני (ha-nachash ha-kadmoni), which is mentioned in various Jewish literature, such as Tzeror ha-Mor, Sotah 9b, Sanhedrin 29a, etc.

Jewish literature often equates Satan with the evil inclination (yezter ha-ra) and the Angel of Death (Bava Batra 16a: הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות). But, it also equates him/ it with Sama'el, the name of an angel. For example, in Tzeror ha-Mor,1 it is written,

  נחש הקדמוני הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הצד ציד הוא סמאל

  The old serpent is Satan; he is the evil inclination; he is "he who has taken venison" (cp. Gen. 27:33); he is Sama'el.

Should Satan always be understood as a human adversary? No.
Where is Satan in the OT? Many places.

As the evil inclination (יצר הרע), he influences man to sin (Bava Batra 16a; Gen. 6:5, 8:21).
As the Angel of Death, he has power to take a man's soul (תנא יורד ומתעה ועולה ומרגיז נוטל רשות ונוטל נשמה; Bava Batra 16a; Job 2:6: אך את נפשו שמור).

I see no evidence that שטן in Job 1-2 is a human adversary, especially when many Jewish sources insist it is a supernatural being.

References

1 Avraham ben Ya'akov Saba. Tzeror ha-Mor, Parashat וישלח יעקב, folio מו , second column. | Hebrew |