Which of Luther's 95 Theses are still potentially valid critiques of Roman Catholicism? Pope Leo X enumerated 41 positions that he required Luther to recant from in order to be restored to communion with the Latin Church.  Presumably, he wasn't all that excited about some of the other Ninety-Five Theses, but preferred to ignore them:

  86. Again:—"Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

Further, it seems that the Roman Church has changed her position on indulgences to the point where, though I disagree with the theology, I can see good purpose in the practice.  In fact, I'm tempted to say that Luther's proposed reforms have been implemented in the spirit they were offered if not to the letter.

So which of Luther's theses, if any, still have bite?

The 95 These are not 95 points of criticism of Catholic doctrine. That is, Luther was not identitifying 95 different doctrines and/or practices of the Catholic church that he disapproved of. Really there are all about one practice of the Catholic church: the selling of indulgences, i.e. telling people that they could buy a "reduced sentence" in purgatory by giving money to the church.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the practices of the Catholic Church today, but to the best of my knowledge they are no longer selling indulgences, directly or indirectly. You might find individual cases where a priest or other representative of the church says or implies that someone can win some favor with God by making a big donation, but these are individual mistakes or abuses and not Catholic policy. Therefore, I think pretty much none of the criticisms in the 95 Theses apply today.

BTW, many of the 95 Theses are not, of themselves, criticisms of the Catholic church. For example #1, "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." Or #94, "Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;" I haven't counted how many are criticisms of church practice and how many are points Luther is trying to establish along the way.

Also note that Luther carefully worded many to avoid overtly criticizing the Catholic church and especially the pope. For example #48, "Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring."


How did Elizabeth know the name was "John" The angel of the Lord only spoke to Zechariah about the name of the child to be born. How did she know about the name? Did the Lord reveal this to her or her husband told her? How she know what the baby should be named?

  Luke 1

  59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were
  going to name him after his father Zechariah,
  60 but his mother spoke
  up and said, “No! He is to be called John.”

  61 They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has
  that name.”

  62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like
  to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s
  astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.”

Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like
  to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone's
  astonishment he wrote, "His name is John."

He had all the time prior to this to write it out to her. That is most likely how he would have communicated it to her. Zechariah writing here is just to show everyone else.


Had Jesus already read the end of the book? Was Jesus aware of his ultimate destiny while on earth?  Did he already know that he would die, be resurrected, and reign as king in heaven while on earth as a man?  If so, does that not diminish the sacrificial intensity of the act?  How many of us would be much better equipped to handle suffering if we have already read the end of the book?  I am a god-fearing person and not trying to prove or disprove anything. I just really want to know the answer to this question backed up by scripture.

If you believe that the Gospels are true, as most Christians do, then the answer is absolutely yes.  Jesus clearly knew not only about his death, but also about his resurrection and glorification.  This can be shown with several different passages, but even just this one passage sums it up rather clearly:

Luke 9:21-26 (NASB)

  But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.” And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

I suspect, however, that you have a misconceived presumption.  You seem to be assuming that the physical pain and shame of the crucifixion was the sum total of the suffering that Jesus had to endure.  Most Christians would tell you that the physical crucifixion was only a small part of the actual suffering.  The larger suffering was spiritual in nature.  Jesus became sin.  He did so to provide propitiation for our sins.

The spiritual aspect of the Christ's suffering was, of course prophesied years before Jesus was born:

Isaiah 53:11-12 (NASB)

  As a result of the anguish of His soul,He will see it and be satisfied;By His knowledge the Righteous One,My Servant, will justify the many,As He will bear their iniquities.Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,And He will divide the booty with the strong;Because He poured out Himself to death,And was numbered with the transgressors;Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,And interceded for the transgressors.

The great distress that Jesus felt because of his knowledge of his coming suffering was most evident when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane.  You can read about that event in Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, and Luke 22:39-46.


If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing? If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

The short answer is that our human nature is still damaged because of sin, both original sin and actual sins.

Before getting into more details of this question, let us see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the effects of confirmation.

  The Effects of Confirmation

  1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

  1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

  it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";115
  it unites us more firmly to Christ;
  it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
  it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;116
  it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:117

  Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.118

  1304 Like Baptism which it completes, Confirmation is given only once, for it too imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, the "character," which is the sign that Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing him with power from on high so that he may be his witness.119

  1305 This "character" perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)."120

This sacrament completes that of baptism and confirms us in grace.

Original sin and actual mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace in our souls. Baptism restores sanctifying grace to the souls. However our human nature remains damaged due to original sin and actual sin.

  Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

Thus actual sins weaken our abilities to resist future evils and temptations and induces us to commit greater sins; thus making it harder to stay in the state of sanctifying grace.

Although sanctifying grace has been restored to our souls through the sacrament of baptism and we are strengthened through the graces received in the sacrament of confirmation, we must still work out our individual salvation. The sacrament aid us in becoming saints, but we must still do our part in fortifying our souls through all means the Church places at our disposal, such as the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession.

Sin is terrible and continuously weekends our human nature while the sacraments do the opposite. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can shed some light on this:

  1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.

  1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

  1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity.

The sacrament of confirmation helps us to live our lives as saints, but we must at the same time cooperate with those very same graces received on the day we were confirmed by our local ordinaries (bishops).

  Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:87:6).

Since our human nature has been damaged by original sin and actual sin; the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are there to restore us to God’s sanctifying grace and to give us the graces necessary to remain holy. We must strive to do our part and be docile to the Spirit of Holiness and cooperate with the graces infused into our soul by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation.

In closing, we must also keep in mind that the Devil is always seeking way to make us fall, whether that be or through fear of some other motivation.


Where in the Bible did God tell Adam and Eve that they have sinned? I was wondering where in the Bible I can find that God told Adam and Eve that they have sinned after they have eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree.

Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).  After creating Adam, God issued only one prohibition in His instructions:

  “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17).

It was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, after they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “their eyes were opened” – and they tried to hide from God:

  “But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”  He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”  The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”  Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:7-13).

God does not use the word “sin” when he pronounces judgment on Adam and Eve for their disobedience.  But God does say WHY they have sinned against Him.  God says to Adam:

  “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17-19).

Adam and Eve succumbed to the temptation “to be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4).  They disobeyed God – and they knew they had done wrong.  That is the original sin that “came into the world through one man” – Adam – and a direct consequence of that sin is death:

  “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:12-14).

Through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  That is what the Bible has to say about sin and how it originated.  Adam and Eve disobeyed God because they wanted “to be like God, knowing good and evil.”  That is sin.


Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once? To take an extreme example, if a person is on a plane that's about to crash, and she wishes to perform a baptism that is valid according to the Catholic Church (and therefore valid according to the many other churches that have the same practices of baptism), should she open the nearest water bottle and:

Say "I baptize you all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while splashing the water towards the heads of the intended recipients of baptism, thus baptizing at least those who had not already been baptized? Or should she:
Say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while pouring the water onto the head of the nearest person, and then proceed to the next person, and so on until death,

because the first option would not be a valid baptism? (Assume that this person is a child that cannot hope to land the plane, that she believes in the same God as Catholics, that she intends to bring the recipients of baptism into the fullness of Christ's Church, that air pressure is lost leaving no more-competent passenger conscious, and that the would-be recipients are a large number of lapsed family members, some of which have been putting baptism off for so long that there is reason to believe that their desire for baptism is at least questionable...)

Put a bit more plainly:

If a Catholic wishes to administer a valid baptism to many people in danger of death, must she baptize each person separately, or can she baptize all of them in one act, and what would be the correct form for doing so?

The rite of the baptism in the Catholic Church used to be in three forms: immersion, affusion or aspersion.

However the rite of aspersion as well the rite of affusion have been set aside in the western Catholic church due to practical and liturgical reasons.

Is it still possible to baptize multiple people by aspersion.

According to this source: "Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed."


How literally do you take and universally apply what Jesus said? It seems like people take some Biblical passages word for word and live it, others not so much. I do not see many people giving their life away for Jesus or i.e. - Jesus said if you want to be perfect you must give away all your money...how come nobody does these things?

Matthew 19:21

  Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
  and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,
  follow me."

or - do you think you can really walk on water if you wholeheartedly believe and do not doubt that you can. Matthew 14:29-30

or- "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

First off, Jesus was speaking to a single archon - the "rich young ruler."  Jesus told Peter to come out and walk on the water, but that doesn't mean I need to do the same :) There is nothing in the text to indicate that this is a generalized principle.

Jesus was speaking to one person, and it is interesting how the exchange goes:

  If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
  18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
  Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
  20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Notice that Jesus seems to know what is going on with this guy.  Of the last six commandments (typically called the "Second Table" because they talk about how man is to relate to man instead of how man is to relate to God in the "First Table"), Jesus only mentions 5.  The missing commandment is significant -

  Thou shalt not covet

It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus knew this was the archon's problem - he was obsessed with wealth. Knowing this young man's problem, he can focus on that.

Also, positionally, this pericope occurs as Jesus is going to Jerusalem to give everything up. Taken from this point of view, it also be taken to show that Jesus himself is totally Good, because Jesus alone is going to be the only one who can truly fulfill this.


What changed between the Old and New Testaments? In the Old Testament God meted out his justice through people, or he himself meted out justice immediately through his own hands:
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Exodus 19:12 and 13  And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:  13  There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Exodus 2:12  And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
Numbers 14:11 and 12  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?  12  I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

However, with the advent of Jesus another precept was initiated.

Matthew 5:21 and 22  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Here we find Jesus not only directing us not to kill, not to even berate them for what they say.
As a Southern Baptist I must wonder why the Same God, would change his Justice imposition so drastically.
Is there any explanation for this in any doctrinal belief in any denomination which addresses this?

Some quick, important notes about your references before answering your question directly:

Moses is not clearly justified in killing the Egyptian. He fled as a guilty man because he committed murder. There are many instance of men taking justice into their own hands, but this does not mean it was good for them to do so.
God continues to bring judgment and punishment under the New Testament. Remember Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) , and Herod (Acts 12) who were killed where they stood by God for their sin.

Perhaps these two notes together answer your question sufficiently and show that God is unchanging. He alone is judge, and he alone can delegate authority to judge. When comparing the Old and the New testament, however, we mustn't forget how the Cross is now a central feature of God's judgement. When Christ suffered the wrath of God, he was taking on wrath for sin yet to come as well as sin that had already passed. We know this because it was needful for him to die once. And I think in this is the answer to your question:

  ...but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  Heb 9:26-28 KJV

"It is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgement. With the Cross, God has changed the timing of his judgement. Christ suffered the wrath of God, and now more than ever God is long-suffering towards sin until the end, so that many will be saved. Even throughout the Old Testament, God suffers long toward sin, waiting centuries sometimes before people have to answer for their rebellion. We as Christ's disciples are to imitate Him, not bringing condemnation before the appointed time. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way. God has not changed the terms of judgement, just the timing and frequency with the Cross.

Perhaps it would be well to ask another question regarding judgment in the New Testament (like that of Herod in Acts 12) and how it relates to God's plan for judgement at the end. That would be a very related, albeit separate, discussion.


How do Pentecostals theologically justifiy when "faithful" snake handlers die? What does it mean to Pentecostal churches whose pastor dies from a snake bite?  The faith in snake handling comes from the literal interpretation of:

Mark 16:17-18 KJV

  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
  shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
  recover.

However, on occasion, a pastor dies from a snake bite.  How does this specific segment of the denomination rationalize the death?

You ask about a specific segment of the denomination. You are confusing the Pentecostal movement (a loose description of churches that believe some similar things about the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts) with a denomination (such as the United Pentecostal Church International, which is a denomination within the movement).

The churches that practice snake handling are (as many Pentecostal churches are) non-denominational, only recognizing the authority of the local church. They may fellowship with like-minded churches, but there is no denominational hierarchy to issue official policy or doctrine.

So for any death caused by a snake-bite, the local pastor would likely offer the interpretation as to why God allowed or caused it. This article gives one interpretation:

  When someone does dies of snake bite, it means that he or she must not have been "anointed" by the spirit to do so. Handlers don’t believe that you should just go around picking up poisonous snakes any old time.

But the original article you linked to in your question has an alternate answer from the son of the pastor:

  when it's your time to go, it's just your time to go

In another article the same son expounded briefly:

  His father's death, he says, was "God's way" of taking him home, and his family will embrace the deadly rattlesnake that delivered his death sentence at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro again this Saturday.

  "It was God saying, this is how you wanted it, and it's your time to go. ... If he didn't plan [to die this way] he would have stayed alive," Cody reportedly told TMZ.

Here is another example of a son explaining his father's death from handling serpents. In this case, the article is about the death of the son (Mack Wolford, died in 2012 after being bitten by a Timber Rattler during a service) but in the article, he describes his own father's death from a serpent bite.

  Wolford was 15 when he saw his father die at age 39 of a rattlesnake bite in almost exactly the same circumstances.

  “He lived 10 1/2 hours,” Wolford told The Washington Post last fall.
  “When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours
  after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart
  stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.”

One thing you must remember is that for any Christian, death is not viewed as the end, but the beginning of eternal life. The word martyr means witness. So in the eyes of this man's church, his death may not be seen as a bad thing, but that he died while bearing witness to his faith. (After all, Jesus, the Apostles, and many early church fathers died martyr's deaths.)

But due to the lack of structure within the movement, an official policy or statement is unlikely to be found.


What does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by 'alteration' of heavenly bodies in Summa Theologiae? In Summa Theologiae, when talking about "The quality of the world after judgement", in the 4th article the reply to objection 4 states:

  "Reply to Objection 4. This brightness will be in these bodies even as it is in the heavenly bodies, in which it causes no heat, because these bodies will then be unalterable, as the heavenly bodies are now."

Here, what does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by alteration?

In the reply to objection 4, he says these bodies will be unalterble. From these bodies I understand that he means things on earth, ie; bodies other than heavenly bodies. If things on earth become unalterable after the judgement, how can redeemed man make use of them as St.Thomas Aquinas states in reply to objection 5 of the 3rd article, in the same link I provided above, that:

  "...thus man will make use of other creatures..."

I think reading the full 4th article in "The quality of the world after judgement" will help a lot in answering the question.
I hope my question is understandable:)

What does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by 'alteration' of heavenly bodies in Summa Theologiae?

What St. Thomas is saying here is that the heavenly bodies are undergoing changes as to the fact that the entire universe is alive, growing and subject to change, just as the earth and it’s inhabitants are.

For example a sun is just a sun. But after a certain amount of time has past by it will eventually die, just like people do.

When God renews the heavens and the earth at the end of time, all this will change and any alterations will cease all together. Everything will exist in perfect harmony with it’s Creator.

  The sun gives energy to life on Earth, and without this star, we wouldn't be here. But like most things in space, even stars have limited lifetimes, and someday our sun will die.

  You don't need to worry about this solar death anytime soon, though. Inside the sun, a churning fusion engine fuels the star, and it still has a lot of fuel left — about 5 billion years' worth.

  Stars like our sun form when a huge cloud of gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) grows so large that it collapses under its own weight. The pressure is so high in the center of that collapsing mass of gas that the heat reaches unimaginable levels, with temperatures so hot that hydrogen atoms lose their electrons. Those naked hydrogen atoms then fuse together into helium atoms, and that reaction releases enough energy to counter the intense pressure of gravity collapsing the cloud of gas. The battle between gravity and the energy from fusion reactions fuels our sun and billions of other stars in our galaxy and beyond.

  What will happen when the sun dies?

  But in about 5 billion years, the sun will run out of hydrogen. Our star is currently in the most stable phase of its life cycle and has been since the birth of our solar system, about 4.5 billion years ago. Once all the hydrogen gets used up, the sun will grow out of this stable phase. With no hydrogen left to fuse in the core, a shell of fusion hydrogen will form around the helium-filled core, astrophysicist Jillian Scudder wrote in an article for The Conversation. Gravitational forces will take over, compressing the core and allowing the rest of the sun to expand. Our star will grow to be larger than we can imagine — so large that it'll envelope the inner planets, including Earth. That's when the sun will become a red giant.

  For about a billion years, the sun will burn as a red giant. Then, the hydrogen in that outer core will deplete, leaving an abundance of helium. That element will then fuse into heavier elements, like oxygen and carbon, in reactions that don't emit as much energy. Once all the helium disappears, the forces of gravity will take over, and the sun will shrink into a white dwarf. All the outer material will dissipate, leaving behind a planetary nebula.

  "When a star dies, it ejects a mass of gas and dust — known as its envelope — into space. The envelope can be as much as half the star's mass. This reveals the star's core, which by this point in the star's life is running out of fuel, eventually turning off and before finally dying," said astronomer Albert Zijlstra, of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, in a statement. - When Will the Sun Die?

Thus we are aware of movement, transforms and alterations going on in space all the time. Meteors hit the earth on a daily bases.

  Whether the world will be renewed?

  We believe all corporeal things to have been made for man's sake, wherefore all things are stated to be subject to him [Psalm 8:5, seqq.]. Now they serve man in two ways, first, as sustenance to his bodily life, secondly, as helping him to know God, inasmuch as man sees the invisible things of God by the things that are made (Romans 1:20). Accordingly glorified man will nowise need creatures to render him the first of these services, since his body will be altogether incorruptible, the Divine power effecting this through the soul which it will glorify immediately. Again man will not need the second service as to intellective knowledge, since by that knowledge he will see God immediately in His essence. The carnal eye, however, will be unable to attain to this vision of the Essence; wherefore that it may be fittingly comforted in the vision of God, it will see the Godhead in Its corporeal effects, wherein manifest proofs of the Divine majesty will appear, especially in Christ's flesh, and secondarily in the bodies of the blessed, and afterwards in all other bodies. Hence those bodies also will need to receive a greater inflow from the Divine goodness than now, not indeed so as to change their species, but so as to add a certain perfection of glory: and such will be the renewal of the world. Wherefore at the one same time, the world will be renewed, and man will be glorified.

  Whether the movement of the heavenly bodies will cease?

  There are three opinions touching this question. The first is of the philosophers who assert that the movement of the heaven will last for ever. But this is not in keeping with our faith, which holds that the elect are in a certain number preordained by God, so that the begetting of men will not last for ever, and for the same reason, neither will other things that are directed to the begetting of men, such as the movement of the heaven and the variations of the elements. Others say that the movement of the heaven will cease naturally. But this again is false, since every body that is moved naturally has a place wherein it rests naturally, whereto it is moved naturally, and whence it is not moved except by violence. Now no such place can be assigned to the heavenly body, since it is not more natural to the sun to move towards a point in the east than to move away from it, wherefore either its movement would not be altogether natural, or its movement would not naturally terminate in rest. Hence we must agree with others who say that the movement of the heaven will cease at this renewal of the world, not indeed by any natural cause, but as a result of the will of God. For the body in question, like other bodies, was made to serve man in the two ways above mentioned (Article 1): and hereafter in the state of glory man will no longer need one of these services, that namely in respect of which the heavenly bodies serve man for the sustenance of his bodily life. Now in this way the heavenly bodies serve man by their movement, in so far as by the heavenly movement the human race is multiplied, plants and animals needful for man's use generated, and the temperature of the atmosphere rendered conducive to health. Therefore the movement of the heavenly body will cease as soon as man is glorified.

  Whether the brightness of the heavenly bodies will be increased at this renewal?

  The renewal of the world is directed to the end that, after this renewal has taken place, God may become visible to man by signs so manifest as to be perceived as it were by his senses. Now creatures lead to the knowledge of God chiefly by their comeliness and beauty, which show forth the wisdom of their Maker and Governor; wherefore it is written (Wisdom 13:5): "By the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." And the beauty of the heavenly bodies consists chiefly in light; wherefore it is written (Sirach 43:10): "The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven, the Lord enlighteneth the world on high." Hence the heavenly bodies will be bettered, especially as regards their brightness. But to what degree and in what way this betterment will take place is known to Him alone Who will bring it about.

  Whether the elements will be renewed by an addition of brightness?

  Just as there is a certain order between the heavenly spirits and the earthly or human spirits, so is there an order between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Since then the corporeal creature was made for the sake of the spiritual and is ruled thereby, it follows that corporeal things are dealt with similarly to spiritual things. Now in this final consummation of things the lower spirits will receive the properties of the higher spirits, because men will be as the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30): and this will be accomplished by conferring the highest degree of perfection on that in which the human spirit agrees with the angelic. Wherefore, in like manner, since the lower bodies do not agree with the heavenly bodies except in the nature of light and transparency (De Anima ii), it follows that the lower bodies are to be perfected chiefly as regards brightness. Hence all the elements will be clothed with a certain brightness, not equally, however, but according to their mode: for it is said that the earth on its outward surface will be as transparent as glass, water as crystal, the air as heaven, fire as the lights of heaven. -
  Question 91. The quality of the world after the judgment


Can Christians still eat meat with blood in it? These are the verses in question that prohibits eating meat with blood in it:

  "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And
  for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
  an accounting from every animal."- Genesis 9:4-5.

  "‘Suppose someone eats meat that still has blood in it. It does not
  matter whether they are an Israelite or an outsider. I will turn
  against them if they eat it. I will separate them from their people."-
  Leviticus 17:10.

Is this just an OT ceremonial law or something else?

As this question explains, some denominations do still follow Old Testament food laws, so would likely answer "no, they can't".

However, many Christians also take Jesus' words in Mark 7 to explain that Christians do not have to follow Old Testament food laws, so would likely answer "yes, they can".

  For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:19 (NIV®)


Where did Swedenborg believe man originate from? The origin of man is thought by some to be through God's creation of Adam and Eve. Some people believe that we originated from lower forms of animals. And some people believe that aliens were the direct progenitors of mankind. Where did Emanuel Swedenborg believe we came from?

Although Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) had a distinguished career as a scientist during his younger and middle years of adulthood, in his mid-fifties he ceased his scientific work and turned to spiritual subjects instead. His theological works, published between 1749 and 1771, in the later period of his life, are devoted almost entirely to Bible interpretation, theology, and accounts of his experiences in the spiritual world. His occasional references to scientific ideas function mostly as illustrations of the spiritual concepts he is presenting.

And in general, the science in his theological works is no more advanced than the best science of his day, together with some of his own speculations on scientific subjects.

In the 18th century when Swedenborg wrote and published his theological works:

Darwin had not yet proposed the theory of evolution of species.
Modern pseudoscientific theories of alien origins of humans on earth did not yet exist.
The Creation stories of Genesis were still the dominant source of belief about human origins.

Swedenborg, then, did not have access to contemporary evolution and alien origin theories for how humans came to be.

And during his theological period Swedenborg rejected traditional literal interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, stating instead that the Creation stories of Genesis were written in a purely symbolic style. Specifically relevant to the current question, he said that there were no individual human beings named Adam and Eve, but that those early figures in the Bible are symbolic of whole early communities human beings.

As to how humans did originate physically, Swedenborg said very little. In fact, there is only one passing reference in his theological writings to how the various species on earth originated. It comes in a conversation that Swedenborg reported having with an angel:

  God is absolute love and absolute wisdom. His love includes an infinite number of feelings. His wisdom includes an infinite number of perceptions. The correspondences of those feelings and perceptions are all the things that appear on earth. This is where the birds and animals come from. This is where the trees and shrubs come from. This is where the grains and crops come from. This is where the plants and grasses come from. . . . The difference is that in our world God creates things of this kind in a moment to match the feelings of angels, while in your world things like this were originally created in a similar way but there was a provision for their perennial renewal from generation to generation; and so creation goes on. (True Christianity #78:3)

In other words, the angel is saying, in the material world God originally created the species instantaneously as an expression of some corresponding element of the nature of God or of some element of the inhabitants of the spiritual world, but that on earth God gave the species the ability to reproduce themselves from then onward.

This is in accord with a common theory of the day with regard to how animals came into existence: spontaneous generation. Earlier in his theological works, in Divine Love and Wisdom #340–344, Swedenborg supported the theory of spontaneous generation in a discussion of where maggots and noxious insects come from.

Apparently, then, Swedenborg believed that originally God created each species directly, giving it the ability to reproduce itself and continue its species by that means, and that in some cases spiritual influences could still directly create smaller living creatures as an expression of particular good or evil thoughts and desires.

Spontaneous generation has since been thoroughly disproved through numerous scientific experiments. And the theory of evolution has long since displaced from scientific thought the idea that humans were originally created instantaneously by God. This has caused cognitive dissonance for some Swedenborgians who are loath to accept that Swedenborg could have been mistaken on these subjects. However, most Swedenborgians today believe that Swedenborg's statements on scientific subjects come more from Swedenborg's own mind and knowledge than from any divine inspiration. Most Swedenborgians today are content to accept the conclusions of science about evolution and other natural phenomena.

As for the fact that it was an angel who stated that God created the species on earth instantaneously, this is likely due to the fact (in Swedenborg's theology) that angels do not think materially, but spiritually, and therefore do not have any special insight into matters of natural science. Angels are apparently dependent upon humans arriving in the spiritual world from earth for any scientific information or theories they may have about the workings of the physical universe.

In short, the angel in this conversation was probably just reflecting a theory about the origins of humans and other species that was current on earth at a time before Darwin had proposed the theory of evolution.

TL;DR: Swedenborg apparently believed that humans were originally created directly by God, and given the ability to reproduce themselves from there. However, most Swedenborgians today accept the theory of evolution as the means by which the human species physically originated on this earth.


Did any of the Church Fathers think the current-day Gospels were not inspired? I heard that some of the Church Fathers referred to the Gospels using terminology which indicates maybe they didn't think they were "inspired".

Is there any statement by one of them that indicates that they thought of the Gospels as just writings that were not inspired?

Not to define exactly what is a Christian, but, very broadly speaking, there were early Christians who rejected parts of what today's Christians consider to be the New Testament.  But, by doing so and thus having a presumably different faith, they are not widely considered "Church Fathers".

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

Yet, as heretics so-called, Origen and Tertullian are considered by some to be "Church Fathers".

So, the quick answer to the OP question is it depends on your definition.

As to the others at that time, Marcion of Sinope is one example of an early "Christian" who rejected the Gospels of Matthew and John.

  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.v.html

The primary problem wasn't particularly rejecting books of the New Testament, but rather interpreting the books in a new and different fashion.  This problem, obviously, continues to the present day.

  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxxvii.html

So, yes, depending on your definition of "Christian" and "Church Father", a case may be made that yes certain books were rejected by them as inspired.


Why does "holiness" mean "set apart" (if it does)? It is very commonly stated that "holiness" means "set apart". What is the scriptural, linguistic, or other basis for this repeated claim?
Specifically:

On what basis is it claimed that the semantic domain of קודש (qodesh)  and/or ἅγιος (hagios) includes the idea "set apart"?
On what basis is it claimed that this is the primary Biblical meaning?
Who first made these claims?

Perhaps the following, from the entry in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Brown, ed) for Holy provides some justification for this question:

The basic idea [in the OT] is not that of separation (though that is favoured by some scholars, ...), but the positive thought of encounter [with divine power] which inevitably demands certain modes of response.

An example of the sort of evidence that one might expect to find would be קודש occurring in synonymous parallelism with some other word with a clear meaning of "separateness".
I would have expected someone to be able to quote some linguistic evidence for the "set apart" meaning of קודש and/or ἅγιος from a scholarly tome, but this hasn't happened so far. Indeed, several responses simply restate the purported definition (without any evidence), which seems to justify my statement that it is commonly stated as the meaning, and that it isn't entirely clear where this idea comes from. I'll keep digging.

There are aspects of moral and ceremonial cleanness associated with the word Kaw-doshe (Holy) and aspects of being set apart, as in something that is holy unto the Lord:

Leviticus 27:30 - Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the
land or of the fruit of the trees, is the LORD's; it is holy to the
LORD.

These aspects, when applied to people regarding anything within creation, require a reaction.  We must think right, speak right, do right, etc.
When applied to Almighty God the predominant meaning is one of "otherness/separateness".

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory! - Isaiah 6:1-3

Yahweh is absolutely "other" (separate, Holy) than anything He has created and, since there is only God and that which God has made, He is singularly "other".
Holiness for God is an intrinsic attribute...He IS Holy and is unlike anything else.  God's "otherness" incorporates His purity, perfection, unity, etc., in that He is unlike anything else in every and each of His attributes.
Holiness for the people of God is an upward call and an outward call.  As Israel was called to be a peculiar people, so we are to be unlike the world around us...seeking worldly wealth, selfish ambition, instant gratification, retribution, etc:

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.” Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. - Revelation 18:1-5

We are to be holy unto the Lord because He IS Holy.  Separate from the rest of creation.  Peculiar. In the world but not of the world.  Strangers and pilgrims looking for that dwelling place  whose author and builder is God.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. - Hebrews 11:8-10

We are called to a life energized by faith not by sight.  We are called to live within the Kingdom of Heaven not the kingdoms of earth.  For this one must swear fealty to the King which Heaven has established; Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.  Abraham saw His day and was glad.  By that faith Abraham was born again and so must we be.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:3-6

Apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ there is no hope of holiness because holiness is an approach, a setting apart, unto  God and no one comes to the Father except through Him.


Does the Bible give any rules for music? Does the Bible provide any rules or even any indication about what kind or style of music is appropriate, both for worship and in general?

I don't think the Bible makes any mention of musical style.  What it does say is to "Make a joyful noise unto the lord" (KJV), Psalm 100.

Modern music of course is usually accompanied by words, and the Bible of course does have much to say about words.  "Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth" Ephesians 4:29, which could apply any popular music.


How was Jesus conceived? The Bible describes some people as being created or formed, in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7,22:

  1:27 God created mankind in his image;
  in the image of God he created them;
  male and female* he created them.

  2:7 then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  2:22 The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,

But usually people are conceived through intercourse, as mentioned in Genesis 4:1:

  1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”

Were either of these the case with Jesus? In what way was Jesus conceived?

Even Mary had the same question in her mind when Angel said to her:

  Luke: 1:31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.

And she immediately asked a similar question as yours:

  Luke: 1:34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”

And the answer is:

  Luke:1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.

It is sometime better to reconcile to the fact that,  we do not  have mind of God to understand His ways and so accept some things as Mary did. If we were to know everything God does and how God carry out His business then He would not be any different from us.


What is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Core (Korah)? Jude 1:11 (KJV): Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jude 1:11 (NIV): Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

Who is “them” mentioned above and what is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Korah?

This isn't an arbitrary grouping of Old Testament sinners, but instead a group of three men who each had the particular error of trying to corrupt the rightful worship of God. Good intentions are not enough when it comes to worship - we must not go against his instructions.

In the case of Cain, the implication is that God did not accept his sacrifice because he did not offer the best of his crops. (Genesis 4:3-5)

In the case of Balaam, Numbers 34:16 says that he not only had intended to curse the Israelites, but that he had advised the Moabites into seducing the Israelites and getting them to worship Baal, which is told in Numbers 25.

In the case of Korah, Moses and Korah actually had a worship contest! (Numbers 16) Korah was a Levite, but he wasn't one of the priests, and so he wasn't allowed to do all that Aaron was. This made him jealous, but God confirmed that only those he said could present incense at the tabernacle.

We could add to the list Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, who in Leviticus 10 burned "strange fire" at the tabernacle and were burned up by God. Creativity was a dangerous thing when it came to worshipping God at the tabernacle!

Jude 10 says that these people "do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction." We must be careful not to follow our instincts blindly, but check them against the revealed word of God.


Did Calvin and Luther believe in free will? According to the Roman Catholic Church, man’s will is in no way determined but that man has the self-power to will good or evil toward God.

Now it seems that Calvin and Luther didn't agree with that. Because mankind was due to the sin of Adam totally corrupted. Does this mean that free will didn't exist for them?

Yes Luther denied we had the ability to choose to respond affirmatively to the Gospel and so save ourselves. He held that it was only through God's intervention that we could be saved. God had to convert a person through the Word, by means of the Holy Spirit changing our hearts and leading us to embrace Christ as our Saviour, in order for us to be saved. This wasn't something in our power to achieve since we had been corrupted by the sin of our first parents and could only reject the Gospel and oppose God. Also in order to be saved God must first elect to save us from eternity and predestine us to believe. This was Luther's position as found in his book “The Bondage of the Will”. Luther also explained his position in his Table Talk where for instance he says:

  Ah, Lord God! why should be boast of our free-will, as if it were able to do anything ever so small, in divine and spiritual matters? when we consider what horrible miseries the devil has brought upon us through sin, we might shame ourselves to death. For, first, free-will led us into original sin, and brought death upon us: afterwards, upon sin followed not only death, but all manner of mischiefs, as we daily find in the world, murder, lying, deceiving, stealing, and other evils, so that no man is safe the twinkling of an eye, in body or goods, but always stands in danger. And, besides these evils, is afflicted with yet a greater, as is noted in the gospel—namely, that he is possessed of the devil, who makes him mad and raging. We know not rightly what we become after the fall of our first parents; what from our mothers we have brought with us. For we have altogether, a confounded, corrupt, and poisoned nature, both in body and soul; throughout the whole of man is nothing that is good. This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man’s free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell… (CCLXII, Table Talk, translated by William Hazlitt)


Any Septuagint (LXX) audio book available online? Searching for a complete audio of Septuagint - Ancient, not Modern Greek translation.
Is it available anywhere online?

Audio CD is available here: The English Translation of the Septuagint Bible Online and here.
It also has The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha.
Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851.
Has History & Reference Books available also.


John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood - Translation of Greek Phrase In Book 3, Section 6, he wrote,

  οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ταύτην, οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐκείνην γεννῶσι. Κἀκεῖνοι μὲν οὐδὲ τὸν σωματικὸν αὐτοῖς δύναιντ' ἂν ἀμύνασθαι θάνατον, οὐ νόσον ἐπενεχθεῖσαν ἀποκρούσασθαι· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν, τοῖς μὲν πραοτέραν τὴν κόλασιν ἐργασάμενοι, τοὺς δὲ οὐδὲ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφέντες ἐμπεσεῖν, οὐ τῷ διδάσκειν μόνον καὶ νουθετεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ δι' εὐχῶν βοηθεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ ὅταν ἡμᾶς ἀναγεννῶσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα συγχωρεῖν ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν ἁμαρτήματα. «Ἀσθενεῖ γάρ τις, φησίν, ἐν ὑμῖν; Προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ' αὐτόν, ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου· καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος, κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.»

The phrase in question is «οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν». W.R.W. Stephens (link) translates the clause as,

  but these others have often saved a sick soul, or one which was on the point of perishing

According to the Greek text, is the soul that is saved "sick or on the point of perishing"? It seems to me that the soul is "both sick and about to perish." Which translation is more in accordance with the Greek text?

References

John Chrysostom. On the Priesthood. Trans. Stephens, W. R. W. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Vol. 9. Ed. Schaff, Philip. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1889.

John Chrysostom. Regarding the Accusation because He Hid from the Priesthood (Πρὸς τὸν Ἐγκαλοῦντα ἐπὶ τῷ Διαφυγεῖν τὴν Ἱερωσύνην). Patrologiæ Græcæ Migne. Book 3, Ch. 6. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 48. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. (646)

και is simply a conjunction and the context dictates how it can best be translated into English to best convey its sense. While it can simply be translated as 'and' in both places, the OP is correct in noting that typically καὶ...καὶ implies some sort of emphasis (and...or, both...and, on one hand...on the other, as well...as, not only...but also, etc.). The specific emphasis must be determined from the context. BDAG (f) defines:

καί … καί both … and, not only … , but also (Synes., Dreams 10 p. 141b καὶ ἀπιστεῖν ἔξεστι καὶ πιστεύειν.—B-D-F §444, 3; Rob. 1182; Mlt-Turner 335) connecting single expressions Mt 10:28; Mk 4:41; Ro 11:33; Phil 2:13; 4:12. κ. ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ. ἐν μεγάλῳ Ac 26:29. κ. ἅπαξ κ. δίς (s. ἅπαξ 1) Phil 4:16; 1 Th 2:18. Connecting whole clauses or sentences: Mk 9:13; J 7:28; 9:37; 12:28; 1 Cor 1:22. Introducing contrasts: although … yet (Anthol. VII, 676 Δοῦλος Ἐπίκτητος γενόμην καὶ σῶμʼ ἀνάπηρος καὶ πενίην ῏Ιρος καὶ φίλος ἀθανάτοις ‘I was Epictetus, a slave; crippled in body and an Iros [a beggar in Hom., Od.] in poverty, but dear to the Immortals’) J 15:24; Ac 23:3. καὶ … κ. οὐ Lk 5:36; J 6:36. καὶ οὐ … καί 17:25; κ. … κ. now … now Mk 9:22. On τὲ … καί s. τέ 2c. Somet. w. ἤ q.v. 1aβ.—HCadbury, Superfluous καί in the Lord’s Prayer (i.e. Mt 6:12) and Elsewhere: Munera Studiosa (=WHatch Festschr.) ’46.

Smyth's Greek Grammar (2877) indicates that καὶ...καὶ places emphasis on each element separately, which seems to fits with the OP's proposed translation of "both...and", however Stephens' translation also conveys the same idea effectively in my opinion.
Two alternate translations render it like so:

"...but these frequently save the soul when it is afflicted and ready to perish..." (Cowper, 1866, p. 68, read on archive.org).
"...but these have often saved the sick soul that is about to die..." (Moxon, 1907, p. 67 read on archive.org).

The contrast in the context of the passage is between natural parents vs. spiritual priests/fathers and their ability to

prevent their children from dying
repel disease

In contrast from natural parents, spiritual priests/fathers often saved the soul that

is about to die
is sick

While the order is reversed in the clause in question, I believe the direct comparison is clear between these two abilities between natural parents and spiritual priests/fathers, and any translation that makes such a contrast clear is sufficient.

Paraphrasing (with significant interpretive license), this might look like the following:

God has bestowed a greater power upon priests than that of our natural parents. And the two differ as much as the present and the future life. Our natural parents bring us into this life, but [priests] into [the life] to come. And [our natural parents] are unable to prevent their offspring from dying, or to repel the assaults of disease; but [priests] have often saved sick [people] as well as [people who were] about to die....


How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to the charge that they are false prophets (because their end-of-the-world predictions didn't come true)? Jehovah's Witnesses seem to identify themselves as prophets:
(Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197).

"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers
and to declare things to come?  These questions can be answered in the
affirmative. Who is this prophet? . . . This "prophet" was not one
man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of
footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as
International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's
Christian witnesses . . . Of course, it is easy to say that this group
acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it,"

The Bible says that prophets whose prophecies don't come true should be ignored:
Deuteronomy 18:22

when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not
come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not
spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be
afraid of him.

Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted the end of the world numerous times but it hasn't happened. How do Jehovah's Witnesses scripturally refute the application of Deuteronomy 18:22 as applying to themselves when confronted with the issues of apparent false prophecy?

Per comments below, I make this edit for clarity:
Jehovah's Witnesses are unique among most denominations in that while claiming to be a type of prophet for God they have made specific predictions on dates and events that were not fulfilled. 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 name a few.
For this reason, unique to this religion, Deuteronomy 18:22 is routinely applied to them.
Thus I am asking how JWs are instructed to reject this application of scripture to themselves?

In their publication Reasoning from the Scriptures they address this question.
They don't claim to be inspired prophets but faithful students of the scriptures who in their constant efforts to keep on the watch have made errors in regard to their expectations on end times bible prophecy. Below is the pertinent quote from that book:

  Have not Jehovah’s Witnesses made errors in their teachings?

  Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets. They have made mistakes. Like the apostles of Jesus Christ, they have at times had some wrong expectations.—Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6.

  The Scriptures provide time elements related to Christ’s presence, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have studied these with keen interest. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:10-17) Jesus also described a many-featured sign that would tie in with the fulfillment of time prophecies to identify the generation that would live to see the end of Satan’s wicked system of things. (Luke 21:7-36) Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to evidence in fulfillment of this sign. It is true that the Witnesses have made mistakes in their understanding of what would occur at the end of certain time periods, but they have not made the mistake of losing faith or ceasing to be watchful as to fulfillment of Jehovah’s purposes. They have continued to keep to the fore in their thinking the counsel given by Jesus: “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”—Matt. 24

Additionally the definition of false prophet provided in this book is quite specific and does not therefore apply to the mistakes made by their scholars in interpreting scripture. Below is the definition:

  False Prophets
  Definition: Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.

For more info from this book published by Jehovah's Witnesses see:  False Prophets.

Additionally the Watchtower of January 2013 directly addresses this question:

  HAVE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES GIVEN INCORRECT DATES FOR THE END?
  Jehovah’s Witnesses have had wrong expectations about when the end would come. Like Jesus’ first-century disciples, we have sometimes looked forward to the fulfillment of prophecy ahead of God’s timetable. (Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) We agree with the sentiment of longtime Witness A. H. Macmillan, who said: “I learned that we should admit our mistakes and continue searching God’s Word for more enlightenment.”

  Why, then, do we continue to highlight the nearness of the end? Because we take seriously Jesus’ words: “Keep looking, keep awake.” The alternative, to be found “sleeping” by Jesus, would prevent us from gaining his favor. (Mark 13:33, 36) Why?

  Consider this example: A lookout in a fire tower might see what he thinks is a wisp of smoke on the horizon and sound what proves to be a false alarm. Later, though, his alertness could save lives.

  Likewise, we have had some wrong expectations about the end. But we are more concerned with obeying Jesus and saving lives than with avoiding criticism. Jesus’ command to “give a thorough witness” compels us to warn others about the end.—Acts 10:42.

  We believe that even more important than focusing on when the end will come, we must be confident that it will come, and we must act accordingly. We take seriously the words of Habakkuk 2:3, which says: “Even if [the end] should delay [compared to what you thought], keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late.”

Additionally there is this footnote in an Awake magazine that makes it clear that we have long been aware that we are not inspired nor infallible:

  Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus’ second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’ The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said: “We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425) “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306) The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157) “The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.” (August 15, 1950, page 263) “The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)” —February 15, 1981, page 19.


Can protestant churches join the Eastern Orthodox Church? What would a church (say a mainline protestant evangelical church) have to believe and do in order to come under Eastern Orthodox Church?

This has only happened on one occasion.   If you read the Book "Becoming Orthodox" It tells the story of a group of Campus Crusade for Christ ministers who formed their own denomination after graduating college, eventually calling themselves the Evangelical Orthodox Church.   That group went on a quest "to discover the doctrine of the Early church", which eventually led them to investigate Eastern Orthodoxy.   Most of the churches in their group converted but a few did not and remained independent.     This sort of thing has happened in a few other cases to individual churches, I can cite stories where a Vineyard (Charismatic) church and a Four-Square Church have converted to become EO parishes.

While this is unlikely to happen (due to the vast differences between most Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox) it is possible.   All that is needed is for the church group to show an interest in learning and adopting the Holy Tradition (of the EO) and a Metropolitan, Patriarch or Bishop that is willing to shepherd them into joining his jurisdiction.  I recommend the following link on the conversion of the Evangelical Orthodox Church.

Retrospective on the EOC Reception into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

"We arrived at the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese headquarters in Englewood, New Jersey, and the moment the door opened I knew my life would change forever. “Welcome home,” burst from Sayedna’s lips after we, the delegation representing the Evangelical Orthodox Church, accepted his gracious offer to receive our parishes — about 2,000 Evangelical Protestants across North America — en masse into the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan PHILIP’s two beautiful words still reverberate in my mind and heart 20 years later, and surely will for the rest of my life.
His Eminence put a lot on the line in receiving the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC). But he took that risk believing it was the right thing to do, and expecting that God would use this move to bless the members of the former EOC as well as all the Orthodox Christians of North America, and through them eventually all the people of our continent. God has been gracious, abundantly pouring out His blessings since Sayedna received the EOC into the Antiochian Archdiocese in 1987. I would like to review four prominent areas in which God has worked: the Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox Conference on Missions and Evangelism, the planting of over 100 new missions, and the revival of Orthodox campus ministry."

http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/17077

Here also are two articles of churches from a Pentecostal and Charismatic background that became Eastern Orthodox.

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/06/o-lord-establish-this-vineyard/

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/05/recovering-the-ancient-paths-dennis-corrigan/


Why don't Christians celebrate the feast of tabernacles? Although there are some who celebrate the feast of Tabernacles they are definitely in a minority.

A prophecy in Zechariah speaks of a time when all nations will have to keep the feast:

  Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles

We know that Jesus celebrated it (John 7:2) and if we believe the prophecies then we will keep the feast again in the future. The current period of not celebrating appears anomalous.

Why don't Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now?

The prophecy has yet come to pass. I wouldn't say the current period is anomalous at all. Up until now, the feast has been celebrated by Jews only (ok, a few Christians). That's a very small minority of people. The prophecy talks about all nations, which is something very different from history.

You mention Jesus going to the feast in John 7, but notice what Jesus says about the feast:

  John 7:8 (ESV)
   8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

Granted, Jesus eventually went in secret. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that Jesus would not go. If it wasn't necessary for even Jesus to go, why should we, gentiles?


What percentage of self-identifying Christians believe Jesus was not God, and instead was a messenger of God? Does such sect inside Christianity exist?

A.) less than 2.2 percent of Christians belong to sects professing to believe that Jesus is not God.

                     Do            Don't         N/A        (in billions)
Catholicism          1.2
Protestantism        0.801
Eastern Orthodoxy    0.230
Oriental Orthodoxy   0.082
Restorationism                      0.045*
Unitarian Universalism                           0.006
Nestorianism                        0.006**
                     2.313          0.051        0.006

Demographics wikipedianot the table

*There are quite a few who would disagree with the assessment of these two groups, including myself, but for the sake of simplicity, if you're going to go looking for groups that deny the Divinity of Christ, start here.

**I was just reading about the hypostatic union, and apparently Nestorian's think it was just luck or something.

B.) The answer is too subjective and contentious to possibly answer without inciting a holy war.   The reasons are probably:

They have different or changed scriptures. (Jehovah's Witnesses)
They were founded by people who called themselves prophets and wanted to essentially start a new religion.
They were founded on enlightenment ideals wherein Jesus could not be God because that would mean God exists in a real and profound way in human history. (Deists and Unitarians probably don't believe this)
They exist to fulfill some desire to project a certain idea about God that others don't share. Like dualism (meaning the body is bad and the soul is good), they'd say that Jesus, couldn't have been God since He inhabited a body. (Christian Scientists and older heretics like the Manichean's) or they think that the Body was inhabited by God, but the Body was not God (Nestorians)


Re-marrying in the Church If two Catholics, both free to marry in the Catholic church, desire (for a very compelling and honorable reason) to marry before their required pre-cana procedures are complete and do so in a non-denominational ceremony, may they then be married in the Catholic Church when their preparation is completed?

By "non-denominational", I take it you mean a civil marriage conducted by the State.

Canon 1055 has

  §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

It is the marriage contract which is the sacrament, and that can be effected anywhere. Naturally it's better that it is supervised by the Church (and Canon 1108 requires a Church presence for canonical validity), but the Church recognises civil marriages. It is for this reason that dissolution of a civil marriage is an impediment to re-marriage.

Canon 1108 has

  §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

A civil marriage without an assisting clergy presence [which is actually forbidden in the UK — a civil marriage can contain nothing religious whatsoever] is invalid. It can be validated.

Validation is covered by Chapter X of the Canons on Marriage:

  Canon 1160

  A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1127, §2.

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

  Canon 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

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

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

"Radical sanation" means "cleansing to the root" and validates the marriage from the time it was originally contracted (that is, in the civil ceremony). However, it's not something to be undertaken lightly, as it needs to be referred at least to the bishop and usually to Rome:

  Canon 1165 §1. The Apostolic See can grant a radical sanation.

  §2. The diocesan bishop can grant a radical sanation in individual cases [...]

Thus a civil marriage can be re-celebrated in church which will validate that marriage from that point, or with permission that re-celebration can validate the entire marriage from when it was originally contracted.

Anecdote: When I and others were received into the Catholic Church, there were two couples whose marriages were deemed to be slightly suspect because of a defect of form or other impediment, and that was a barrier to their participation in the sacramental life of the Church. A service was held at which they (and another couple, whose marriage was entirely OK but who wanted to express solidarity) effectively renewed their vows according to the canonical form approved by the Church. This was done privately, in the presence of a few close friends, but presumably it could have happened in a far more lavish way.

As Peter says in his answer, there is always an answer to the requirements of Canon Law: the Canons are intended to be compassionately just, and justly compassionate.

Necessary caveat and disclaimer: Nothing in this answer should be treated as a definitive answer on Canon Law or any individual case, for which the diocesan Tribunal should be consulted (the route to which starts with the parish priest).


How come Easter is associated with Eggs, Bunnies and Flowers? On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong.

However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.

It isn't... Or rather, they are associated with the seasonal event but not the Christian event of Easter.. Pagans and general common folk had celebrated spring with signs of new life for a long long time before Christ. Easter then became associated with the spring festivals (in particular, but not limited to, the equinox) in the same way that Christmas became intermingled with pre-existing winter (and in particular, solstice) celebrations. All of the "popular" symbols of Easter are nothing to do with what Christianity calls Easter.

http://www.home2b.nl/susan-office-easter-pagan.html
http://www.witchology.com/contents/march/ostara.php
http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/holidays/easter-problems.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

Eggs and bunnies have as much to do with the resurrection as trees and sleighs have to do with the birth.

To a community where much of the population are involved in food production, the seasons (and spring/winter in particular), and the signs there-of, are all-pervasive.

The crucifixion story is a pretty gruesome thing, and frankly doesn't "market" as well as eggs and bunnies.


LDS teaching about man being able to become God, and the snake telling Eve that she can become "like God" According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation that is asked about in other questions (such as this one), a human can eventually become a God.

What is the Mormon teaching about the events described in the Bible about the garden of Eden in which the "snake" is described as having told Eve that she will become "like God"?

Some religions state that a spirit being (Satan) was using the snake as a mouthpiece (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses in this article).

With this question I wanted to know what the LDS church stand is on the passage.

Are the events in Eden merely fiction or a description of something that actually happened?
If the events are a description of something that happened, was the snake telling Eve the truth, or was he lying?
Was the statement made by the snake a reference to the same exaltation what Mormons describe in the Doctrine of Exaltation?
Is the "snake" (or the spirit being that used the snake as a mouthpiece) considered a good or a bad character?
If what the snake (or the spirit being that used the snake as a mouthpiece) said provided something beneficial for Adam and Eve then (seeing as it went against what God had told them) why did God tell them not to eat from the tree?

Let me see if I can answer those questions:

1) As stated by "staples", we believe the story to be both literal and symbolic, though some Mormons tend to a little all over the place as to how much is literal and how much is symbolic.

2) The "snake" was lying by telling a half-truth.  Yes, Adam and Eve would become "like God" in the sense that they would know good from evil (something they didn't have), but it wouldn't .

3) Perhaps the "snake" was referring to exaltation, but the fruit never had that capability.  It would simply cause them to lose their innocence (thus covering their nakedness) and allow them to know good from evil.

4) We do see the "snake" as a bad character, but don't transfer that to all snakes, just that "snake" character.

5) This is actually a little bit more complicated.  You see, the purpose of the creation of the earth was to provide God's children an opportunity to learn and grow.  In order for their growth to matter, there had to be a Fall and that Fall had to be at the decision of a mortal.  Without the fall, Adam and Eve would have remained in innocence and never would have children (preventing the rest of humanity to come to Earth).  The Fall is what makes the Atonement so vital.

While this may seem like God set up humanity to Fall, but at the same time, God cannot infringe upon the agency of mankind.  By telling Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit and also to multiply (have kids), they're actually contradictory commandments that can only be resolved by a mortal's decision to break them.

For what it's worth, Mormonism is unique in the idea that we don't consider Adam's Transgression as this horrible moment, but a necessary step for the progression of all of God's children. (In fact, we regard Adam quite highly!)

For more information, I recommend this page from FairMormon.org, just in case my answer is inadequate (which it may be).


How can apologists argue that if Jesus did not rise again then Christianity and the Church would not have lasted, when other religions have? As I reflect on this Easter holiday, as a spiritually young person, I thought of the idea that's often repeated: that if the resurrection of Jesus were not true, then Christianity and the Church would not have lasted.

Given this one "method of proof", I was wondering: couldn't we then say the same about Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, which have lasted for many, many years too?

So, this makes me think that the argument, while very intriguing, is flawed.

The comment by @curiousdannii points us in the right direction.

Origins of Major religions.

1) Judaism also calls on its believer's to remember the miracles that set them free from Egypt (an event I believe happened). They were led by Moses, a literate man raised and educated by Egyptian royals. Under Moses, they survived several military attacks, and his disciple, Joshua, was then a great military leader who conquered a large territory. Clearly the success of Judaism is dependent upon a foundational period with a charismatic leader and then a military genius.

2) Buddhism was started by a prince who had the opportunity to hire teachers and study religious ideas. Siddartha was scientific in his approach to religion, trying ascetism of  various kinds, abandoning that which did not work. His ideas are clearly the work of a first rate intellect. His rise to prominence required decades, during which time there is no evidence that he faced great persecution.

3) Islam was started by Mohammed, who began a lengthy and successful series of military conquests, and was succeeded by others who continued in that path. During its first century, Islam conquered half of the lands along the Meditteranean sea and Persia to the east.

4) Hinduism's origins are shrouded in mystery. Since no one knows who started it or under what conditions, no conclusions can be drawn related to this question.

5) Zarathustra, founder of Zoroastrianism, did suffer opposition by the leaders of his time, but eventually persuaded a king to follow his teachings, thus cementing a place in society for his ideas.

6) Christianity, by contrast was started by uneducated people:

  When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
  were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
  that these men had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

The Romans launched ten major persecutions against the Church, lasting for over 250 years. From the very beginning, its followers were on the run. Whatever sustained it, it was not the same as what sustained these other religions during their formative years.

No return to Judaism.

There is a second line of reasoning as powerful as the first. Jesus claimed to be God the Son, but also one with the Father. If he did not rise from the dead, then either God was dead, and there would no longer any reason to worship him, or he was not really God, and there would be no reason to worship him. That would leave Jesus as:

a healer, like Elijah and Elisha
a teacher, like Ezra or Moses
a paragon of wisdom, like Solomon or Daniel
a prophet, like Isaiah
a righteous sufferer, like Job

Considering that - apart from claims to divinity - Jesus’ teachings are merely a distillation or restatement of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, what do you have? No reason not to return to Judaism. The fact that the church, which began by worshiping at the temple, did not just dissolve back into temple worship and become a reform movement within Judaism is proof that it had something distinctive. The only distinctive things Christianity had (at first) to make it different from Judaism were the incarnation of God, the substitutionary atonement on the cross, and the resurrection. You need the resurrection to prove the first two, so all you really have is the resurrection.

That is why Paul preached “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2)

Partial Counterexample: Sikhism:

The history of Sikhism is a counterexample to this apologetic argument, because it resembles Christianity in some respects.

They suffered severe persecution by the Mughal empire, followed by the British
Many of their lead Gurus were executed
After centuries of suffering, they acquired political power
They preach radical equality of all castes...
... equality of men and women, including the foundation of schools for women
They forbid the practice of Sati (wife burning)
Preach tolerance of Muslims and Hindus
Hold regular community meals where all people of all levels of society and all races are invited to eat for free

The most important difference is that Sikhs strongly discourage talk of myths, magic and miracles. Their religion focuses on ethics, generosity, morality and equality. Thus they have no supernatural backstory to be invalidated, so there was no problem that the death of a guru promising resurrection or some other miraculous claim could invalidate their beliefs. The teachings on equality alone surely earned their religion many followers. Thus Sikhism is not a real counterexample, but it comes closest among the major world religions.


When did people start to deny Jesus as a historical person? Somewhat related to this question:

What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history?

Is there any record of when people started to give the idea that Jesus never existed? Is this a 19th - 21th century phenomena, or did it arise earlier?

I frequently meet people that say Jesus never existed and at best they pull forth Josephus as an argument to back up their standpoint. A lot of people also argue that Jesus was a common name and it was likely a collection of fantasy stories and myths about a lot of people of the time, etc., etc.

So, again, I'm not after contemporary or other sources mentioning Jesus, but wondered when the denial of Jesus as a historical person came about. Is there for example a specific historical person, work or society that is seen as a milestone for this etc?

The 'Christ myth theory' Wikipedia page actually provides quite an in-depth exposition on the development of the concept Jesus wasn't a historical person:

  The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney (1757–1820) and Charles-François Dupuis (1742–1809). Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character.

Later still...

  In 1835, German theologian David Friedrich Strauß (1808–1874) published his extremely controversial The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (Das Leben Jesu). While not denying that Jesus existed, he did argue that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical retellings of normal events as supernatural happenings.

Finally...

  German Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), who taught at the University of Bonn, took Strauss' arguments further and became the first author to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist.

A key component of the theory is the supposition that the new testament texts are utterly useless in providing any accurate historical data regarding 'the person of Jesus of Nazareth'.

However, most scholars today, even those with a critical view of the new testament, agree that Jesus certainly existed and made some manner of impact on the religious-political scene of first-century Judea. His crucifixion during the governorship of Pilate is a historical fact taken for granted, and his baptism by John is usually admitted even by those who criticize the reliability of the new testament in its depiction of historical events.


Posture when singing the Marian antiphon in the Evensong of the Divine Office of the Personal Ordinariates? In the Roman Office, people, when singing the Marian antiphon, are expected to kneel while saying the Marian antiphon except on Sundays (Compline of the Roman Office by Benjamin Bloomfield.

What should be the posture of a person when singing the Marian antiphon of the Evensong of the Divine Office within the Personal Ordinariates?

The Ordinariates' official office book is currently in preparation, but there does exist the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham of the UK Ordinariate [the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham].

That contains the Order for Evening Prayer which is very similar to the Evensong of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. It contains the rubric

  The Anthem to the Blessed Virgin Mary follows the final office of the day (see pages 151 and 928).

The latter page shows the plainsong settings of the Latin texts; the former lays out a usual translation, the versicles/responses and the collects. There is no indication of posture at all.

The Customary also includes an Order for Compline which is very similar in structure to the Bloomfield office linked in the question (albeit in English, of course), including the responsories* and the prayer Vísita, quǽsumus Dómine, habitatiónem istam. There is no indication of posture.

It's also the case that there is no indication of posture in the [modern] Divine Office for Compline (or, indeed, at all). In the Bloomfield version, indications of posture appear to be lacking — the Order implies standing up to Deus in adjutorium, but omits the customary sitting for the psalms, and anything after that. I can't see where the OP assertion comes from.

In short, there is no indication of posture in any of the Office books. I've never experienced kneeling for the final anthem (either in the Church of England or since joining the Catholic Church in the Ordinariate), and in my opinion the words don't really lend themselves to that.

* The Customary Order for Compline also includes Keep me as the apple of an eye / Hide me under the shadow of thy wings which is not included in the Bloomfield version.


Digital versions of Greek Bibles Does anyone know if there are digital versions of these greek New Testament texts available? Not just online or pdf versions, but complete downloadable full Greek texts in unicode text format:

Textus Sinaiticus
Textus Vaticanus
Textus Receptus (Download)
Westcott and Hort (Download)
Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition

And maybe if you know any other good options for comparative studies, I'd appreciate.

I will add hyperlinks to the titles, when I have found pleasing site for my purpose with your help.

I did some Google search for you. I found these online resources. Some are Unicode, some are not.

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Textus Receptus
Westcott and Hort
Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition