What is the Biblical basis for saying Lucifer is an angel? Where in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was one of the angels or an archangel?

Interesting question. In the Bible, this is strongly hinted at rather than directly stated. Here is the evidence:

In Job 1:6 we learn that Satan was in heaven with other angels.

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

That Satan is (was) in heaven is also seen in Zechariah 3:1-2, Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:9. Revelation 12:9 gives a further clue to Satan's identity:

  The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

This thought is also stated by Jesus in Matthew 25:41:

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

That he has his own angels, is a further clue to him being a (former) angel. (And incidentally, Isaiah 14:12-15 is often used to show why Satan fell, because he wanted to ascend to God's throne).

Note also 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says that Satan can "masquerade as an angel of light."

Conclusion: we know that Satan lives / has lived in heaven, with other angels (some of which are his own), that he was (or will be) cast out of heaven. From this we infer that he is a "fallen angel".

Update: In my answer above I assembled evidence for Satan being an angel. But it's not proof (see comments below). Which leads me to consider proof by exhaustion: if Satan was not an angel, what could he be? I know of only three types of sentient beings in the Bible: God, man and angels. He's clearly not God, nor man. That only leaves one other option.

Update on Lucifer: @Dan asks where Lucifer is named as such. The answer is in Isaiah 14:12 KJV:

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

This verse and the wider passage are historically interpreted as referring to Satan, though it is not directly stated.

Footnote: there are only two named angels in the Bible. Michael (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Daniel 12:1, Jude 1:9 & Revelation 12:7) & Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Luke 1:19 & Luke 1:26).


Apostolic Succession in the Catholic church Wikipedia says:

  In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint
  Peter, the Apostle.
  cf. Pope | Wikipedia

As someone who isn't Catholic I don't want to argue how true this is or how significant this is.

What I'm interested to know is there an office/title/person in the Catholic church for any of the other 11 Apostles (12 if you include Paul), or is it just Saint Peter because he was the leader of the apostles?

The other apostles are associated with other Churches. St Mark, for example, was the founder of the Church of Alexandria; St Thomas is believed to have taken Christianity to India; and so on. Only St John the Evangelist did not die a martyr in a far-off place (at least, Patmos isn't as far as India).

Accordingly, most of the other apostles do not have such a place as Peter's within the Roman Church, but they do have a similar position as Patriarchs of the Churches they founded.


In what way does the author of Hebrews argue that every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution? Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard,
  lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels
  proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience
  received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a
  great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was
  attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by
  signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit
  distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4 ESV)

The author appears to be arguing in the past tense, as if to say that every transgression or disobedience has already received a just retribution, but considering the fact that the day of judgment has not yet taken place, it doesn't seem like that is possible.

What does the author of Hebrews mean?

The note in NAB explains this:

  The author now makes a transition into exhortation, using an a fortiori argument (as at Heb 7:21–22; 9:13–14; 10:28–29; 12:25). The word announced through angels (Heb 2:2), the Mosaic law, is contrasted with the more powerful word that Christians have received (Heb 2:3–4). Christ’s supremacy strengthens Christians against being carried away from their faith.

There is also a reference to Acts 7:38, 53; Gal 3:19.

  Acts 7:38 It was he who, in the assembly in the desert, was with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai and with our ancestors, and he received living utterances to hand on to us.
  39 “Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,
  40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’
  41 So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands. ...

The letter to the Hebrews is directed to an audience familiar with the Old Testament. The author is calling to mind all the past retributions for transgressions against the Mosaic law. "If then it was so, when God announced it through angels, will it not be all the more so now, since it has been announced through Christ Himself?"


Origin of the saying: Ex Deo Nascimur, In Christo Morimur Ex Deo Nascimur,
  In Christo Morimur,
  Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus

  From God we are born,
  In Christ we die,
  (and) in (/per) the Holy Spirit we are reborn (revived)

This is an old saying that I think is attributed to the Rosicrucians.  I'm trying to back track it further as it clearly predates them by at least a millennia.

Any ideas on the origins?

Fama Fratemitatis

According to the Fama Fratemitatis, the origins of the saying appear to be from Christian Rosenkreuz (b.1378) who formed a small group in Germany in the early to mid 15th century for the purpose of inseminating a, "general reformation." This group created a series of Axiomata [Sayings] along with a secret dictionary, a mysterious wheel and a house to serve as their temple. When Rosankreuz died in 1484 he was placed in a tomb with an inscription on the vault instructing that the tomb be opened in 120yrs. When his body was exhumed in in 1604 he was found to be holding a parchment in his hands. At the bottom of that parchment was written: "Ex Deo Nascimur, In Christo Morimur, Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus."

Source: Rosicrucianism Renewed


What should be a Christian's attitude when his prayers are not answered? Not all prayers are answered by God. When one is facing some heavy burden God does not move away, what should our attitude be? The Bible often talks about waiting for God patient. How do we apply these Bible verses?

First, we should recognize that our requests were not in accordance with His will:

1 John 5:14-15 (NASB)
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

That's not to say that our asking for it was sinful (though, that's a possibility: James 4:3), but we do not have all of the information that God has.  Keep in mind that what seems painful at the time, may be in your ultimate best interest.  Therefore, knowing this, consider it all joy that God is able to work out all things for the best.

Romans 8:28 (NASB)
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
James 1:2-4 (NASB)
2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

One example of this principle at work is given by Paul, who describes to the Corinthians a "thorn in his flesh" that he wished to be taken away.

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 (NASB)
8  Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9  And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God told Paul no, and Paul saw in hindsight that God used this thorn to keep Paul from spiritual pride (v7).
So trust God that His plan is superior to our own.  Through all hardships (and good times, for that matter), trust God, constantly seeking closeness with Him.

Matthew 6:25-34 (NASB)
    25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? 28 And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! 31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
  34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Why is it usually easier to do things the wrong or unethical way than to do things the right way? Jenny Thompson generalized this question from another that I asked earlier, so I thought I'd ask it here.

I have a few suggested answers on this:
(But they're probably all wrong)

Some people have more brain power (frontal lobes) than others  (but this kind of relays me back to God in this case for why that would be the case)
Somebody is probably going to say "because the devil is the ruler of this world", in which  case I still have to ask, "well why Did God create him then?"
Commercialism / Greed has made unethical thought more appealing because of the "short term gains" it provides.

It's only easier at first to do the wrong thing; but consequences follow and make the way more difficult afterwards.

Proverbs has a lot to say about wisdom and not going the easy, enticing way.

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. (Prov. 14:12).

and

In the paths of the wicked lie thorns and snares,
but he who guards his soul stays far from them." (Prov. 22:5)

By contrast,

The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,
shining ever brighter till the full light of day. (Prov. 4:18).

As to why it is easier for us to do the wrong thing, Paul speaks of the death that reigns over all mankind because of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam:

...sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

Our inherited propensity to sin makes it harder to do the right thing.


Aquinas' understanding of love - is it desire? St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of love is "to will the good of another" - is it same as defining love as "to desire the good of another"?

According to Aquinas, does "loving" always require "desire for the good of another"?

Aquinas' understanding of love - is it desire?

The answer is NO!

Explaining the answer

In Summa Theol., I-II, Q. xxiii, a. 4, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are six passions for the concupiscible appetite: love and hatred, desire and aversion, joy and sadness; and five for the irascible appetite: hope and despair, courage, fear, and anger. [Cf. Appetite | New Advent].

Therefore according to St. Thomas Aquinas, love and desire both belong to the passions for the concupiscible appetite but he does not equate the two.

Endnote

CCC 1765 teaches that love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed.

My understanding is that love a passion causes desire another passion, only when the good willed is absent. Once the good is obtained, love continues but the desire now is fulfilled and complete and rests in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed [cf. heaven].


Which prophets died outside Jerusalem? Jesus said that no prophet can die outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). Did any prophets die outside Jerusalem? If so, which ones?

The problem to solve is related to quoting Scripture out of context

  Purposely then He says nothing in answer to the idle question, but
  turns His discourse to a more important subject. ~ St Cyril

Jesus was speaking about himself ("a prophet") in the third person

Jesus also referred to himself as "a prophet" in Mark 6:4:

  “But Jesus said unto them, a prophet is not without honour, but
  in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house

The context of that comment in Mark is the negative reaction to him in Nazareth.

What's going on in Luke 13; what's the context?

Regarding Luke 13:33, a note in the New American Bible makes the following point:

  [13:33] It is impossible that a prophet should die outside of
  Jerusalem: Jerusalem is the city of destiny and the goal of the
  journey of the prophet Jesus. Only when he reaches the holy city will
  his work be accomplished.

Consider the context of that section in Luke: Jesus is engaging in foretelling.

Luke 13:27-35 (NAB)

  27 Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where [you] are from.
  Depart from me, all you evildoers!’  28 And there will be wailing and
  grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the
  prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.   29  And
  people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the
  south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. 30  For behold,
  some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”
  31 At that time some Pharisees came to him and said, “Go away, leave
  this area because Herod wants to kill you.”  32 He replied, “Go and
  tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today
  and tomorrow, and on the third day I accomplish my purpose. Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day, for it is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.  34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were unwilling!  35 Behold, your house will be abandoned. [But] I tell
  you, you will not see me until [the time comes when] you say, ‘Blessed
  is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”s

What, the Bible wasn't written in English?

What is the correct rendering of the passage into English?  Good question.  If we look at bible gateway, the two most common renderings are (1) "... it is not possible/it is impossible" and (2) "... it cannot be" ... that a prophet dies outside of Jerusalem."  (More than 10 each).  Those aren't identical meanings, but they are similar enough, and most of them use "a prophet" as the subject.  (As Jesus did in Mark 6:4).

Other ways that is has been rendered into English. (All from biblegateway).

  AMPC ... for it will never do for a prophet to be destroyed away from
  Jerusalem!
  CJB ... it is unthinkable that a prophet should die anywhere but in
  Yerushalayim.
  CEV ... Jerusalem is the place where prophets are killed.
  DARBY ... for it must not be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
  ERV ... I must go, because all prophets should die in Jerusalem.
  EXB  ... it cannot be right [is impossible; is unthinkable] for a prophet > to be killed anywhere except in Jerusalem.
  GNT ... it is not right for a prophet to be killed anywhere except in
  Jerusalem.
  PHILLIPS  ... for it would never do for a prophet to meet his death
  outside Jerusalem!
  MSG ... it’s not proper for a prophet to come to a bad end outside
  Jerusalem.
  NLV ... One who speaks for God cannot die except at Jerusalem.
  WYC ... for it falleth not [for] a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.

Dead prophets

At least two other prophets died outside of Jerusalem, besides the example you offer.

Moses never made it to the promised land, so he obviously died
"outside of Jerusalem."
Jeremiah was released by the Babylonians and reportedly left for
Mizpah, and thence to Egypt.  As there is no record of his death,
nor of his return, it is most likely that he died in Egypt.

Conclusion

Jesus is speaking of himself in the third person.  He knows that it is God's will that he die in Jerusalem.

If you look at the commentaries of theologians who preceded Thomas Aquinas, you will find in Lectio 5 of the Cataena Aurea regarding Luke, none of them dwell on that phrase.  Their commentaries vary somewhat, but their themes and interpretations are on the bigger picture of the trials Jerusalem (where prophets are killed) has coming ... but Jesus will go on, as his Father's will directs.

St Cyril:

  Purposely then He says nothing in answer to the idle question, but
  turns His discourse to a more important subject.

@AndrewShanks points out that John the Baptist, a prophet, was killed by Herod who (according to Josephus) was based in Machaerus.


Who is the king described in 2 Kings 8:1–6? 2 Kings 8:1–6 (ESV)
  1 Now Elisha had said to the woman whose son he had restored to life, “Arise, and depart with your household, and sojourn wherever you can, for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will come upon the land for seven years.” 2 So the woman arose and did according to the word of the man of God. She went with her household and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. 3 And at the end of the seven years, when the woman returned from the land of the Philistines, she went to appeal to the king for her house and her land. 4 Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me all the great things that Elisha has done.” 5 And while he was telling the king how Elisha had restored the dead to life, behold, the woman whose son he had restored to life appealed to the king for her house and her land. And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, here is the woman, and here is her son whom Elisha restored to life.” 6 And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed an official for her, saying, “Restore all that was hers, together with all the produce of the fields from the day that she left the land until now.”

In the story of The Shunammite's Land Restored, we see a king who asks Gehazi to tell great things that Elisha has done. Who is this king? Where else in the Bible he is mentioned? Was he a king of Israel?

This is Jehoram, King of Israel. The woman sojourns to The land of the Philestines to avoid the famine, and then returns to Israel.

A good exegesis and commentary of this, from the perspective of Gehazi, can be found here:
http://biblehub.com/topical/g/gehazi.htm

More is written about Jehoram starting in 2 Kings 3:

  1 In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned twelve years.
  2 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, though not like his father and mother, for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made.
  3 Nevertheless, he clung to the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin; he did not depart from it. - 2 Kings 3:1-3 ESV

It should be noted that the subject of Jehoram is a little confusing,since there were 2 Jehorams, but Jehoram, King of Judah (also known as Joram) did not come into power until after this event.  This confusion between Jehorams and the dating conventions has been addressed very well by Edwin Thiele:
http://www.thischristianjourney.com/thischristianjourney/generalpages/joram_jehoram_problem.htm


Is the Catholic Church the oldest church? I read one of your articles which stated that Catholicism was the first Christian religion.  I was under the impression that the Chalcedonians and Armenians both predate Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.  They were apparently Jewish either by birth or conversion.  Where do they fit in?  I understood that the aforementioned Catholic branches did not evolve until the Great Schism in 1050, and were not actually official until Constantine's reign.

It looks like you're a bit muddled up with your history! Here's a quick explanation of some of the branches you mentioned, but you should also read through the Wikipedia article on Christian denominations or get a church history book if you want to know more.

So the real first church must of course be the church of Jerusalem, which began on the day Jesus was resurrected (or a few weeks later at Pentecost, depending how you want to think about it.) Christianity spread widely, and within a couple of decades there were churches all around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The first church in Rome would probably have been started between 40-50 AD.

In the early church the bishops of each church/city were to a large extent autonomous, though the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome were the most prominent; these five were later called Patriarchs. There is debate over this of course, but in this period the Roman pope was at most a first-among-equals. The authority lay in the collective authority of general councils like Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. There were times when the other bishops overruled the bishop of Rome, and some were even declared heretics.

The diagram shows how the branches formed. When Nestorianism was rejected at the Council of Ephesus, the Assyrian Church of the East broke ties with the rest of Christendom. Similarly at the Council of Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites broke communion with the Chalcedonian churches, and we now call them the Oriental Orthodox. The Armenian church is one of these Oriental Orthodox churches.

What we now think of as the Roman Catholic Church developed over the almost two millennia since it started. While its character and doctrines have been developed, it is indisputably very old, but as with all the other old churches, no claims for founding dates can be verified (except Jerusalem of course.)


How sound are the arguments that Melchizedek invoked a Canaanite deity when he met Abraham? Melchizedek serves an important theological role in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews interprets Psalm 110 to speak of Jesus' priestly order (Melchizedek), thus resolving the potential problem that Jesus might have been suspected to be an illegitimate priest since he was not named after the order of Aaron.
As I understand it in Hebrews 7, he makes the argument that because because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, it demonstrates that Abraham was blessed in some legitimate priestly fashion by Melchizedek, and that the one who blesses is superior to the one who receives the blessing, therefore Melchizedek is even superior to Abraham, which makes it quite fitting that Jesus would be after this priestly order, not the priestly order with descendants of Aaron who are limited by their own death. One might venture to guess from this theological interpretation that Melchizedek might have even been a type of theophany of Jesus, or if not, that his priesthood was special, unparalleled, and arcane.
However, the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary on the passage in Genesis 14:1-24 in dealing with the question of authenticity notes (p. 109):

Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity (see NOTE) as good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular case.

The NOTE referenced mentions:

El-Elyon. Both elements ('el and 'elyon) occur as names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin combines the two into a compound. Though appellatives at first ("god" and "supreme" respectively), both are attested also as personal synonym for Elohim; and 'elyon occurs either separately (Isa xiv 14; Ps ix 3), or as a divine epithet (Pss vii 18, xlvii 3, lvii 3, lxxviii 56). But these are relatively late passages which conceivably could hark back to instances before us. The question, then, is how to interpret the latter.
Now that this chapter is amply attested as a source unto itself, it is not only unnecessary but fallacious to harmonize its contents with other portions of the OT. As a Canaanite priest, Melchizedek would invoke his deity or deities by name; and this is what the above translation sought to reproduce. Abraham would just as naturally turn to Yahweh, especially in an oath.

While Speiser (the author of AYB Commentary on Genesis) argues that it's fallacious to harmonize El-Elyon, it seems to be attempting to prove too much from Melchizedek's choice of deity name he invokes. Melchizedek appears upon the end of a bloody struggle between pagan kings, but was not himself involved in the battles. His words impose divine significance upon Abraham's victory, which make little sense if Abraham does not believe in his god. Further, it would seem to undermine the general message of the Pentateuch. Why would the author of the Pentateuch who bundles law about the Levitical priesthood receiving tithes, and the Canaanite deities being abominations, include Abraham acknowledging the legitimacy of the pagan Canaanite priesthood of Melchizedek by paying him a tithe?
What's Speiser's argument here? Is it more than a simple reaffirmation of the source hypothesis?

Perhaps, some may agree with this (theophany). However, another way of looking at this passage in Hebrews is that the author is discussing an order or priestly appointment (precedent) without lineal descent. Just as Melchizedek had no known lineage (some Jewish commentators have written about traditions that Shem, Noah's son is Melchizedek, though this is disputed), so is Christ, who is eternal and without lineage [spiritual origin rather than earthly parentage]. The purpose of using Melchizedek is obvious in the text:

"He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." (Heb. 7:3, ESV)

It's obvious that the author of Hebrews is trying to establish a priest who lasts forever (the reference to neither beginning or end and a priest forever and without father or mother or genealogy) as compared to the Levitical priests who were unable to continue in their office due to death (Heb.7:23). It could be argued that the author of Hebrews is using Melchizedek as a type of Christ rather than strictly demonstrating a theophany.

  As I understand it in Hebrews 7, he makes the argument
  that because because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, it
  demonstrates that Abraham was blessed in some legitimate
  priestly fashion by Melchizedek, and that the one who
  blesses is superior to the one who receives the blessing,
  therefore Melchizedek is even superior to Abraham, which
  makes it quite fitting that Jesus would be after this
  priestly order, not the priestly order with descendants
  of Aaron who are limited by their own death. One might
  venture to guess from this theological interpretation
  that Melchizedek might have even been a type of theophany
  of Jesus, or if not, that his priesthood was special,
  unparalleled, and arcane.

However, to discuss the question about El-Elyon, otherwise translated as "the Most High God" one should ask whether El-Elyon was the name of a 'God', who was identified as the Most High, or whether it was a common 'word' for the Most High God. In terms of the Old Testament Scriptures, it's clear that the term El-Elyon is referring to God.

You can see many Scriptures in the Old Testament that equate both, but in the Pentateuch (Torah), you'll find them here. Very early in the Pentateuch, YHWH is clearly the same deity as El-Elyon or the Most High God.

Balaam, the oracle of God equates them in this passage:

"the oracle of him who hears the words of God,
and knows the knowledge of the Most High,
who sees the vision of the Almighty" (Num. 24:26, ESV)

Those who misunderstood the nature of God, could make an idol, and name that deity after "El-Elyon". This doesn't necessarily mean that that deity that has been shaped or made is a true representation of God.

Therefore, it's unlikely that Melchizedek would have invoked a Canaanite deity.


Did Jesus have Free Will? (Arianism) This is NOT this question

I've been reading a lot about Arianism and this is an interesting point that they have:

  Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right
  and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have
  come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was
  not, and hence He was a finite being,"[37] and was under God the
  Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John
  14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15:
  "Firstborn of all creation."

So then, before being on the cross, did Jesus (being 100% man) have free will to make mistakes?

It would be the heresy of monophysitism  (or, pushed to an extreme docetism)  to deny Jesus' free will.

The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 -

  "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning.

Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states:

  “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin”

Again, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, this statement makes no sense.

Finally, even Satan realized that Jesus could sin. Otherwise, why would he have even attempted to entice Jesus to break his fast, worship him, or put God to the test, in the wilderness in Luke 4 / Matthew 4?


Where do those who say Noah's flood was an actual event say the water went? According to those who say Noah's flood was an actual global event, Where did the flood waters go when they subsided?  Myself and others have researched this and could not answer it honestly and completely. We have thought that it went to the middle of the earth but there is only metal according to research.

Creationists who believe the flood was a real global event say the water is still here, in the earth's oceans.

The oceans are much deeper than the mountains of earth are high, and they cover a much greater proportion of the earth's surface. Some have estimated that if the earth's surface was flattened the oceans' waters would cover the land to a depth of 2.7km.

Creationists see passages like Psalm 104:5-9 as teaching that during the flood there was significant tectonic activity, as the mountains rose and valleys sank, giving us the continents we see today, and 'hiding' the flood waters in the oceans.

  Ps 104:5 He established the earth on its foundations;
  it will never be shaken.
  6 You covered it with the deep
  as if it were a garment;
  the water stood above the mountains.
  7 At your rebuke the water fled;
  at the sound of your thunder they hurried away—
  8 mountains rose and valleys sank—
  to the place you established for them.
  9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
  they will never cover the earth again.

Passages like these are ambiguous, and could be read as referring either to the original creation of land in Genesis 1:9-10, or to the aftermath of Noah's flood. In the case of Psalm 104 I think verse 9 does indicate that, at least by the end of this stanza, it is referring to the flood, for it speaks of God's promise not to flood the earth again, a promise that God had not made before the flood. I think the creation-flood ambiguity is deliberate - the story of Noah is a story of re-creation: a new earth, a new set of life (preserved on the ark), and a new family to repopulate the earth.


Are these Bible verses referencing UFOs? Ezekiel 1:16:

  This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel.

Exodus 13:22:

  Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

2 Kings 2:1:

  When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.

Do these, or any other verses in the Bible, refer to UFOs, in the sense of extra-terrestrial, or extra-dimensional vehicles?

Depends on how UFO is being defined. Extra-terrestrial? God and his angels are also extra-terrestrial! But, I assume you are meaning life outside of Earth, but not including heavenly beings. In which case, then, these cases you mentioned aren't "UFO's"

In the first example, the things being referred to can be seen in verse one:

  Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, as I [was] among the captives by the river of Chebar, [that] the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

This where the wheels came from. It can be clearly seen that, the wheels, came from Heaven. Being so, it would have been a heavenly object, thus, disqualifying it from being a UFO.

The second example given, was actually the angel of the Lord, not any extra-terrestrial object, thus, not a UFO either.

A whirlwind is obviously not an extra-dimensional vehicle, as whirlwinds appear everyday.

What might pass of as an extra-dimensional vehicle, could be the "chariots of fire, and the horses of fire" that took Elijah up into heaven:

  1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

However, it could be argued that, as these are coming from Heaven, these are still heavenly beings or objects, and thus, not UFOs


Are Catholic Trunk-or-Treat parties considered Halloween or All-Saint's-Day parties? Many Catholic churches in the U.S. consider Trunk-or-Treat as a "Christ-centered, safe, family celebration". With expectations that volunteer workers' costumes & stations allude to biblical stories or saints, Are Catholic Trunk-or-Treat parties considered Halloween or All-Saint's-Day parties?

Are Catholic Trunk-or-Treat parties considered Halloween or All-Saint's-Day parties?
In one sense, they are simply considered parties! However that does not paint the whole picture.
Halloween party festivities are generally not endorsed by the Catholic Church. There is no religious feast day celebrating it.
Up until 1955, the Church’s Liturgical Calendar for the 31st of October celebrated the day as the Vigil of All Saints. That meant purple vestments and generally also was kept as fast day. That sounds like a far cry from a trick or treating party.

In 1955, Pope Pius XII reduced the number to 7, suppressing the vigils of the Immaculate Conception, Epiphany, and All Saints and all vigils of apostles except that of Saints Peter and Paul. In the 1950s Pope Pius XII instituted a reform of the Easter Vigil, first on an experimental basis, then making it obligatory in 1955. Among other changes, he changed the hour of the service from Holy Saturday morning to after sunset in the following night, thus restoring it to something like the original meaning of a Christian vigil service. - Vigil

The whole idea of Halloween parties being considered All Saints Parties will ultimately depend on the local tradition of one’s particular parish living according to Catholic values, that includes the trunk-or-treat parties: some could be considered All Saints Parties , while other are not.

Move over trick or treat, there's a new gig in town and it's called trunk or treat. Originally started by church groups with the aim of providing a safer environment for trick-or-treaters on Halloween, trunk or treat involves a community coming together in a parking lot, either on the 31st or shortly before, so that children can trick-or-treat out of the decorated trunks of their cars.
If trunk-or-treating hasn't hit your town yet, odds are it soon will because the door-to-door alternative is gaining in popularity, owing in part to the convenience inherent in condensing a large volume of candy into a small area (read: less walking), but mostly for the opportunity it affords holiday decor enthusiasts, to get creative with their trunks.
Like anything, however, trunk or treat has its detractors. I for one, feel a little uneasy about this threat to good old-fashioned trick-or-treating. - Trunk Or Treat: New Tradition Could Change Halloween As We Know It

If a particular Catholic community were to hold a trunk-or-treat party and insist that costume wearers should be dressed as saints, then yes that particular party could be considered an All Saints Vigil Party! That means no costumes of devils, demons, witches or the like.
The parish next to my own actually has done this for a few years now. Only saints permitted in and St. Peter is holding the keys to the parking lot!
Another parish community of All Saints has been holding a “Halloween Party” for decades now in their auditorium that has been based on Catholic values. Once again only appropriate saints costumes are allowed in.
In the end, a trunk-or-treat party would only be considered an All Saint Party if it actually sticks to some very basic guidelines, otherwise it just your average happy-go-lucky Halloween Party!
To think that the Church truly endorses the whole concept of Halloween is nonsense, as there is actually nothing in the liturgy to consider it a genuine Catholic festivity.


How does the Reformed tradition understand Philippians 2:6-9 as it regards the Hypostatic Union? Philippians 2:6-9

  (A) Though he was God,  he did not think of equality with God as
  something to cling to

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

  And being found in human form,  (C) he humbled himself by becoming
  obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

  Therefore  (D) God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the
  name that is above every name

I'm in the middle conversation with some of my Christian friends who hold Hypostatic Union. But although they hold the same thing, it seems there is still a different opinion of the verse between them.

Friend-1
Point A is talking before the Incarnation.
Point B is talking just about the Incarnation.
Point C is talking during the Incarnation.
Point D is because point C not because point B.

Friend-2
point-A is talking during the Incarnation.
point-B is talking during the Incarnation.
Point C is talking during the Incarnation.
Point D is because point B and because point C.

So, which one is correct according to the Reformed tradition?

Thank you.

A refers to the fact that He became incarnate, and His humility (motive, "mindset" 2:5). Thus, it implicitly contains what He was thinking before the incarnation, but isn't strictly speaking of a specific time.

B the example used for His humility—that He took on the form of a man. Again, it's not so much a time point, rather than recounting the mindset He had in becoming incarnate in general. Now that he is speaking of the incarnate Word (implicit post-incarnation), He is not likely (and doesn't) go back to speak of Him before the Incarnation.

C He is "in human form" and thus this is speaking post-incarnation.

D He is exalted because God the Father loves the perfect humility of His Son; the incarnation necessarily meant God the Father granted to His blameless and divine Son every privlege, including and included in exaltation.


In Matthew 23:35, who was “Zacharias son of Barachias”? In Matt. 23:35, it is written,

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. KJV, 1769
ΛΕʹ ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Who was Zacharias son of Barachias?
Is this event mentioned in the Bible or in any secular history?

Greek Text

ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Textual Variants
According to Constantin Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, the Codex Sinaiticus omits υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, but there are earlier witnesses who cite it, such as Irenaeus (~130-202 A.D.) and Origen (~182-254 A.D.).
Analysis of Names
The name Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου is entirely declined in the genitive case. The nominative form of Ζαχαρίου is Ζαχαρίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָה (Zekharyah)/ זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu).1 As for the name Βαραχίου, its nominative form is Βαραχίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָה (Berekhyah)/בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu).2 Therefore, in the Hebrew Tanakh, we would be looking for an individual named זְכַרְיָה בֶּן בֶּרֶכְיָה (Zekharyah ben Berekhyah), or in the Greek Septuagint, Ζαχαρίας υἱοῦ Βαραχίου.
Common Belief
It is commonly believed that the person killed in Matt. 23:35 is misidentified by either the Lord Jesus Christ or the evangelist, or perhaps even a later scribe. Rather than Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, some believe the actual person who was killed was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), as this is the only Zechariah whose death matches the one mentioned in Matt. 23:35. For example, in 2 Chr. 24:20-22, it is written,

20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it. KJV, 1769

This individual’s name was Zekharyah (זְכַרְיָה), and he was killed (stoned) in the “house of Yahveh” (בֵּית יַהְוֶה) another name for the Temple (cp. 1 Kings 6:1). The difficulty with this belief is that this Zechariah (Zekharyah) was the son of Jehoiada (Yehoyada), not Berechiah (Berekhyah), therefore it doesn’t appear to be the same person.
Option 1: Zechariah, the Father of John the Baptist
An alternative belief is that the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35 is the father of John the Baptist (cp. Luke 1:5).3 While the gospels never mention Zechariah’s father’s name, nor mention Zechariah being murdered in the Temple, some base their belief in this theory on a passage in the Gospel of James.4

But at the hour of the salutation the priests went away, and Zacharias did not come forth to meet them with a blessing, according to his custom. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias to salute him at the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. And he still delaying, they were all afraid. But one of them ventured to go in, and he saw clotted blood beside the altar; and he heard a voice saying: Zacharias has been murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped up until his avenger come. And hearing this saying, he was afraid, and went out and told it to the priests. And they ventured in, and saw what had happened; and the fretwork of the temple made a wailing noise, and they rent their clothes from the top even to the bottom. And they found not his body, but they found his blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and reported to the people that Zacharias had been murdered. And all the tribes of the people heard, and mourned, and lamented for him three days and three nights. And after the three days, the priests consulted as to whom they should put in his place; and the lot fell upon Simeon. For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh. Translation by Roberts-Donaldson

Of course, the difficulty with this belief is the book itself is not canonical and essentially amounts to hearsay, although I believe the Greek Orthodox Church (and perhaps others) accepts the account therein.
Option 2: Zechariah, son of Baruch, in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews
Others believe that the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 is “Zechariah, son of Baruch.” The Jewish historian Josephus mentions him in his Wars of the Jews.5

334 And now these zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; 335 and as they intended to have Zacharias, the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain,—so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by taking him off, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a man that had great power to destroy them. 336 So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their polity to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose. 337 Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, and desired that such their affirmation might be taken for sufficient evidence. 338 Now when Zacharias clearly saw that there was no way remaining for his escape from them, as having been treacherously called before them, and then put in prison, but not with any intention of a legal trial, he took great liberty of speech in that despair of life he was under. Accordingly he stood up, and laughed a their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge; 339 after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentations upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to: 340 in the meantime the zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril. 341 Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict, that the person accused was not guilty,—as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors; 342 hereupon there rose a great clamor of the zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. 343 So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” They also threw him down out of the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Translation by William Whiston

The difficulty with this belief is that the Lord Jesus Christ likely spoke those words (which the evangelist Matthew later wrote in his gospel) around 30 A.D., give or take a few years. Referring to Zechariah son of Berechiah, the Lord Jesus Christ told the Jews, “...whom you killed...” (ὃν ἐφονεύσατε), past tense, referring to an event which had already happened. On the other hand, the Zechariah the son of Baruch mentioned by Josephus would have been killed approximately 35 years after the Lord Jesus Christ died. One last note is that the Greek name of the person mentioned above is Ζαχαρίας υἱὸς Βάρεις, which doesn’t exactly match the name of the person in Matt. 23:35 (i.e., Βαραχίου).
Option 3: Common Belief is the Authentic Meaning
So we return to Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), whose death was described in 2 Chr. 24:20-22. In the LXX, his father’s name is written (in the genitive) as Ιωδαε (2 Chr. 24:20). But, in Matt. 23:35, the father of Zechariah is written as Βαραχίου.
In the Targum of Lam. 2:20, it is written,

See, O’ Yahveh, and observe from heaven against whom you have turned. Thus is it right for the daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, the lovely boys wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied and thus said, “Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the temple of Yahveh, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet in the temple of Yahveh on the Day of Atonement because he admonished you not to do evil before Yahveh?”
חזי יהוה ותהי מסתכל מן שמיא למן אסתקיפתא כדנן אם חזי לבנתא דישראל למיכל פירי בטניהון עולימיא רגיגתא דהוו מלפפין בסדינין דמילתין ענת מידת דינא וכן אמרת אם חזי למקטל בבית מוקדשא דיהוה כהנא ונבייא כמה דקטלתון ית זכריה בר עדו כהנא רבא ונבייא מהימן בבית מוקדשא דיהוה ביומא דכפוריא על דאוכח יתכון דלא תעבדון דביש קדם יהוה

Now, one might think that this “Zechariah son of Iddo” (זכריה בר עדו) is the prophet Zechariah in Zec. 1:1. The Targum states that the people killed this high priest and prophet Zechariah son of Iddo on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). In his commentary on 2 Chr. 24:20 (recall that this is the verse that refers to Zechariah son of Jehoiada) Rashi wrote,

above the people - Higher than the people, in order to make his voice heard. In Lamentations Rabba (Eikha Rabbati), it is interpreted as meaning that he relied on himself; he was a prince higher than all the people, a prophet and a priest, and it was Yom Kippur, and he was the king’s son-in-law, and he was not afraid to say the prophecy. Concerning this incident, it was stated (Lam. 2:20): “shall priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of Yahveh?”
מעל לעם - גבוה מכל העם כדי להשמיע קולו, ובאיכה רבתי דורש סמך על עצמו שהיה שר גבוה מכל העם נביא וכהן וביום הכפורים וחתן המלך ולא נתיירא מלומר נבואה ועל זה נאמר (איכה ב') אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא ובמותו אמר ירא ה' וידרוש כי לא הרגוני אלא שאמרתי שליחותו של מקום ומאחר שנהרגתי עליו מן הדין והגון וכדי הוא שידרוש דמי וכן היה כי מיד נדרש דמו כי לתקופת השנה וגו

So, it seems that maybe “Zechariah son of Iddo” could be another name for Zechariah son of Jehoiada. The prophet Zechariah (Zec. 1:1) was not the son-in-law of a king, but Zechariah son of Jehoiada certainly was (2 Chr. 22:11). This does not mean the prophet Zechariah (in the book of Zechariah) is Zechariah son of Jehoiada. They obviously lived in different times; so, this isn’t a possibility. Rather, there was obviously a tradition that Zechariah son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע) was also named Zechariah son of Iddo (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן עִדֹּו).
Now we turn to Isa. 8:2, in which it is written,

And I shall take faithful witnesses to witness for Me, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Coincidentally, in the LXX, this “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” has the same name as the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35.6
John Lightfoot wrote,7

the difficulty under our hand is resolved, as I imagine, very clearly: and I suppose that Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah in Isaiah is the very same with our Zacharias the son of Jehoiada; and that the sense of Isaiah comes to this: in that and the foregoing chapter there is a discourse of the future destruction of Damascus, Samaria, and Judea. For a confirmation of the truth of this prophecy, God makes use of a double testimony: first, he commands the prophet Isaiah to write, over and over again, in a great volume, from the beginning to the end, “To hasten the spoil, he hastened the prey”: and this volume should be an undoubted testimony to them, that God would certainly bring on and hasten the forementioned spoiling and destruction. “And moreover (saith God), I will raise up to myself two faithful martyrs,” (or witnesses,) who shall testify and seal the same thing with their words and with their blood, namely, Uriah the priest, who shall hereafter be crowned with martyrdom for this very thing, Jeremiah 26:20,23, and Zechariah the son of Barachiah, or Jehoiada, who is lately already crowned: he [Zechariah], the first martyr under the first Temple; this [Uriah], the last. Hear, thou Jew, who taxest Matthew in this place: your own authors assert, that Uriah the priest is to be understood by that Uriah who was killed by Jehoiakim; and that truly. We also assert, that Zechariah the son of Jehoiadah is to be understood by Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and that Matthew and Christ do not at all innovate in this name of Barachias, but did only pronounce the same things concerning the father of the martyr Zacharias, which God himself had pronounced before them by the prophet Isaiah.

John Lightfoot subsequently includes answers to questions which he pre-empts on account of his interpretation and resolution of the verse. The reader is encouraged to read further on p. 307-308.

References
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans. Whiston, William. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations). Trans. Gandell, Robert. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1859.
Footnotes
1 cp. 2 Kings 15:8 LXX, where the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu) is translated into Greek as Ζαχαριας (Zacharias). To note, this is not the same individual mentioned in Matt. 23:35. It is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, as it will obviously be necessary to investigate the Hebrew Tanakh and find such a person by the same name.
2 cp. 2 Chr. 28:12 LXX, where the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu) is translated into Greek as Βαραχιας (Barachias). Again, this is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, not to imply that they are the same person.
3 While the King James Version spells his name as “Zacharias,” the Greek name is Ζαχαρίας, the same name found in Matt. 23:35. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes the translators who produced the King James Version had a habit of transliterating the same Greek name differently into English for different individuals.
4 §24. Also known as the Protoevaneglium of James or the Infancy Gospel of James. This apocryphal book is dated to about 145 A.D.
5 Book 4, Ch. 5, §4, or Book 4, §334-343.
6 The LXX has Ζαχαριαν υἱὸν Βαραχιου, which of course, Ζαχαριαν is the accusative declension of Ζαχαριας.
7 p. 306-207


Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation I was reading Angelic Doctor about religious vocation (= a invation from God to life as dioceasn priest or in some kind of religous order (like Dominicans, Franciscans...)) and it seems that he did not view the matter as most view today. Among the things Aquinas says (in On The Perfection of the Spiritual Life - it is on end of chapter 8) is:

  This solution of Augustine is in harmony with what was said above about poverty. For Abraham had so great spiritual perfection in virtue, that his spirit did not fall short of perfect love for God on account either of temporal possessions or of married life. But if another man who does not have the same spiritual virtues, strives to attain perfection, while retaining riches and entering into marriage, his error in presuming to treat Our Lord’s words as of small account will soon be demonstrated.

It would seem that according to Aquinas, one must, under the pain of sin of persumption, and if the one is able to (without any obvious impediments), pursue spiritual life of poverty and celibate. I am not sure that this is what Aquinas really wants to say, however, let me try to formalize possible argument (be it one from Aquinas or not) for a such position.

Let me organize the argument in six points (which I will justify in the edit if somone objects to some point in the comments). It goes something like this.

If one does not want to attain perfection, he sins mortaly.
Thefore if one wants to be saved, he must desire perfection.
Easier (more safe) path to perfection is via life of celibate and poverty.
Salvation is not easy to attain, therfore one must be at most careful to do anything that he can to attain it (or he commits a sin of persumption).
If one can chooses between more safe and less safe way to perfection he must take a more safe path, because if he choose less safe way he would not be at most careful to do anything to attain salvation.
Since more safe way is way of celibacy and poverty, and one must choose more safe way under pain of sin of persumption, it follows that one, if he is able to, must choose life of poverty and celibacy or else he sins.

If my argument does not work, I think that I may be failing to make some distinction, upon which one could desire the perfection and yet choose the less safe way without any sin. But how can one really desire perfection, if, when the better way is presented, he chooses the less safe way? Obviously if the better way is not presented one is excused. But what would be some examples that excuse somone that is not already married or suffers some serious impediment (like missing a hand,...)? Would that be having a passion and being good in some job (like a teacher or something) and long relationship with boyfreind or girlfreind? I take these two examples, because it seems to me, that youth today are most commonly thinking between those two and life of priest or life in some religous order. Would those two be reasnoble justfication for not following a better way, or are they obliged to leave everything for life as a priest or a life in some religous order? Do they sin if they do not leave everything (is it venial or mortal if it is even a sin)?

I am confused because this does not seem as common opinion of the Church, so any help would be great. Thanks.

It seems you're asking about the difference between precepts and counsels. All are bound to follow the precepts (10 Commandments, Precepts of the Church, etc.), but a person not bound by religious vows does not sin by not living up to the counsels (poverty, chastity, obedience) to their fullest.

See:

St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the commandments [precepts] or of the counsels?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 184 a. 3).
Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.'s Theology of Christian Perfection

p. 141 on the obligation of the laity to strive toward perfection,

We are all (religious and non-religious) obliged to strive for perfection (Mt. 5:48: "Be you therefore perfect").

p. 142 on choosing the better good.

cf. St. Thomas's commentary on Mt. 19:12 ("He that can take, let him take it [celibacy]."):Is not a man obliged to do the greater good? I say that one must distinguish the greater good in regard to the actual performance or in regard to the desire. One is not held to the greater good in regard to their actual performance, but to the desire to do them, because every rule and every action is determined to something defined and certain: but if one is bound to do every action that is better, one is bound to something uncertain. Hence, in regard to exterior actions, because one is not bound to do something uncertain, one is not bound to do the greater good; but in regard to the desire, one is held to desire the greater good. Hence, he who does not always wish to be better, cannot wish without contempt [of doing the greater good].** "There is a way of fulfilling this precept, so as to avoid sin, namely, if one do what one can as required by the conditions of one’s state of life: provided there be no contempt of doing better things, which contempt sets the mind against spiritual progress" (II II, q. 186, a. 2 ad 2um).Thus, married Christians must have the spirit of the counsels, even if they do not have the opportunity to put them into practice.


What does it mean to "Bless the LORD"? Psalm 103:1-2  (KJV)
  Bless the Lord, O my soul:
  and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
   Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits

What does it mean to say "Bless the Lord"?. It is more logical that the superior one should bless the inferior one. We are sinners and the LORD is far more superior than us. We should be asking blessings from Him. But what does it mean when we bless the Lord?

There are many songs using this phrase like  this beautiful song.

We are sinners and how can we bless the Lord? What is the exact use of this sentence? If I am simply telling my soul to bless the Lord then I think it's reasonable. But can it be used while praying and say "Lord, I bless you"? I feel uncomfortable at this.

Is this a translation issue?  What is the meaning of this phrase and what is its usage?

To bless is related to to consecrate. Both imply an act of recognizing and/or declaring and devoting something to have a particular purpose or holiness.

If a father blesses his son's decision in a matter, we mean that the father supports and acknowledges the decision.

If a priest blesses a marriage, he declares, with the approval of the whole Church in the case of Catholic + Orthodox priests, the marriage to be a approved, valid, and holy.

Similarly, when a person or group blesses God, they declare their approval and recognition of God's value, holiness, and "worshippableness" in their own "private" world. It is similar to, but distinct from, praise.

And a blessing always demands a particular type of treatment of the blessed object or person. In the case of God, it demands worship.


Was Solomon interested in studying the Scriptures? 1 Kings 4:29-34 (NIV)

  God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of
  understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s
  wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East, and
  greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than anyone else,
  including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the
  sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He
  spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and
  five. He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the
  hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds,
  reptiles and fish. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s
  wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his
  wisdom.

Solomon was great indeed. Here I can at least see 4 different subjects where he is interested in; Literature, Poetry, Botany, Zoology . Great. But what about Theology! This makes me wonder, was Solomon interested in reading the Torah? The five books of Moses were already there and there are many interesting things in there. It might be possible that he revered the Torah so much that he never thought of studying it? There were also other books like Samuel, Judges, Ruth and others. He met with the God of Israel at least two times and God gave him wisdom and wealth, but still his wives could turn his heart after other gods.

Was Solomon interested in knowing God? Was he interested in studying the scriptures at all?

Proverbs 1:1
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
Proverbs 4:20-23
My son, attend to my words;
incline thine ear unto my sayings.
Let them not depart from thine eyes;
keep them in the midst of thine heart.
For they are life unto those that find them,
and health to all their flesh.
Keep thy heart with all diligence;
for out of it are the issues of life.
Proverbs 21:2-4
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:
but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
To do justice and judgment
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
An high look, and a proud heart,
and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Yes Solomon wrote the book a Proverbs which magnifies God's wisdom in the seemingly small and yet altogether important things.


Is there any holy language for Christians according to words of Jesus Christ and the apostles? The Jews have Hebrew. Muslims have Arabic. Hindus have Sanskrit.

For Christians, is there any holy language? Is there any holy language for Christians according to words of Jesus Christ and the apostles (from New Testament)?

Essentially, no: there is no language specified for religious use in Christianity.

From the early days of the Church, there was variety in religious language. The Western Church primarily spoke Latin (the vernacular) while the Eastern Church spoke Greek (again, the vernacular).

Various churches have languages that have special status, especially for liturgy. For instance, Latin still has a special status in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church; Old Church Slavonic is the liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox Church (among others); Syriac is used by the Maronite Church and the Syriac Orthodox Churches (again, among others). Hebrew and Greek obviously have a special importance as the languages of the Bible.

But none of these languages is as tightly bound to religious identity as Arabic, Hebrew or Sanskrit are to Islam, Judaism and Hinduism respectively.

(If I were to theorise, I would suggest that this is due to the nature of the development of these religions. Whereas those religions developed mainly in one culture, Christianity rapidly spread to and developed in multiple cultures. So it is not bound to one specific culture or language in the same way.)


Nature of Agape (Catholic) Agape is usually defined as the love that Jesus had for us from the cross. Does agape contain affection for others whom the agape is directed to?

Please answer according to Catholic understanding.

Does agape contain affection for others whom the agape is directed to?
Short answer: Yes(it can, but it does not seem to be required to).

Discussion
Definition: Agape (Ancient Greek: ἀγάπη) is "love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."

The Catholic teaching on Charity.

The catholic teaching is that agape/charity, is the greatest theological virtue.  From the Catechism:

  1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
  1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment(John 13:34). By
  loving his own "to the end," (John 13:1) he makes manifest the
  Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples
  imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive.  Whence Jesus
  says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my
  love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another
  as I have loved you." (John 15:9; 12)

  1824 Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the
  ommandments of God and his Christ: "Abide in my love. If you keep my
  commandments, you will abide in my love."
  1825 Christ died out of love for us, while we were still "enemies." The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself.

    The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity:
    "charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it
    is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is
    not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices
    in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all
    things, endures all things." (1 Corinthians 13).

  1826 "If I . . . have not charity," says the Apostle, "I am nothing."
  Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, "if I . . . have not
  charity, I gain nothing."  Charity is superior to all the virtues. It
  is the first of the theological virtues: "So faith, hope, charity
  abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity." (1
  Corithians, 13:13)

St Basil:

  If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the
  position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we
  resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good
  itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the
  position of children.

St Augustine:

  Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal;
  that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we
  shall find rest.

On an experiential note, in the past six years I have been involved with a lot of lay retreats that place heavy emphasis on the virtue of charity, and the principle of agape as the theme of the retreats.  Agape is alive and well, and being emphasized.


According to the Eastern Orthodox, what are the rules for acquiring / owning icons? The Eastern Orthodox churches generally place great importance on icons. I remember reading that they say private owners should not buy icons (but can e.g. get them as a gift). I'd like to know what the rules are, where they are documented, and whether they are different for different kinds of icon (historically important ones, normal "written" ones, machine reprints etc).

I have never heard either of any rule about not buying icons. If we all waited until we received them as gifts, we’d probably have very few, and we might wait our whole lives and never get any. And when would churches get them? So rarely they would never have proper iconostases. But an icon emits Divine Energy¹, which is also known as the Grace of God, so they’re highly important, and the more you have, the more of the Grace comes into your house. So yes, please buy icons. However, definitely do not get any from a place called “Monastery Icons”. That place is not even Christian², and while they do sell a few authentic (and stunningly beautiful) icons they have bought from elsewhere, what they paint is not nearly canonical. The skin of the saints is monochrome (real icons use some contrast, a bit green in the background, golden in foreground) and like that of a mannequin, the texture of the clothing is cartoonish, the colors garish and clashing. Backgrounds generally, or at least the halo, should be gold-leaf, or at least a soft and glowing golden color, but their backgrounds are always flat, and usually saturated, orangish yellow. By the way, if you like their authentic icons, you can get that same Russian style from the reputable Holy Trinity Store and Istok.

The most important thing about owning icons is please do not treat them disrespectfully. ‘Icon’ is the same word as ‘image’ in the Bible, and it’s a representation not just in the usual sense of that word, but completely literally too, a re-presentation:

  eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, "be like") – properly, "mirror-like
  representation," referring to what is very close in resemblance (like
  a "high-definition" projection, as defined by the context). Image
  (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source (what it directly
  corresponds to). For example, Christ is the very image (1504 /eikṓn,
  supreme expression) of the Godhead (see 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15).

  "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles,
  but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). 1504 (eikṓn) then is more
  than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews,
  226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).³

So an icon of a saint should be treated much like that saint. Therefore, it shouldn’t touch the floor (to not be in danger of being stepped on or kicked), it shouldn’t get dirty, it should be put in a place of honor, it should never be thrown away, and if you have to dispose of it (even a paper printing of one from a magazine or church bulletin), you should bury it, or burn it⁴ (OK, this part is different, maybe for the purpose of saving space) and then bury the ashes where the ground won’t be stepped on. And an icon should never be printed on clothes. The only clothing it goes on are vestments. Inferior materials do not make the same image into a common picture, so yes, the rules are always the same.

Going beyond not disrespecting to actual respect, one starts by making the Sign of the Cross (3 first fingers together for Trinity, 2 other fingers against palm
for 2 natures of Christ; say (or think), ‘In the Name of the Father’ and touch forehead; say, ‘and the Son’ and touch solar plexus; say, ‘and the Holy…’ and touch right shoulder; say, ‘Spirit’ and touch left shoulder) in front of the icon, bow, then stand, and kiss the icon. If it’s Christ, and you can see the feet, kiss the feet. All other cases kiss the hand, or clothes or whatever you can reach is OK too. Don’t kiss the face; that’s for equals. Then you can say a prayer. The icon should be on a stand, stood up on a shelf, or hung on the wall. It’s preferable for it to face west, so you face east when you pray, the direction Christ will return from.

Continuing with practices of greater reverence, you can touch the floor with the back of the hand (i.e. do a metania) or make a prostration, instead of just bowing.

(Sorry, I don’t have an ‘at home’ picture of that one.) A candle,
or better, an oil lamp,⁵ and possibly incense (church kind only, not Nag Champa or something from Spencer’s), should be burned in front of the icons. (I haven’t done this myself, because we have a toddler, and we might be too forgetful anyway for a fire hazard!) You can make the Sign of the Cross—it is a sanctification—when entering a room that has icons in it, the same as people do when entering a church with them. Another high respect is refraining from crossing your legs, or otherwise sitting in a particularly casual posture, in front of icons.

Funny thing about this is many of the rules for the care of an icon are the same as or very similar to the care for a flag (U.S. at least): keeping it clean and off the floor and ground, disposal, only garment it may be on is a service uniform in small format, saluting (i.e. bowing, while it doesn’t bow, and the flag may not be dipped), remembering it stands for others, keeping it lit, being at attention, and respectful songs are associated. But many (or most?) Protestants honor the secular flag with the actions they refuse to give to holy icons, even of Jesus Christ Himself.

My background personally: I was a member of an Eastern Orthodox church for 3 years, and now have been a Byzantine Catholic for 2 years. (The Russian Catholic Church is where I was put, apparently because of my Russian-Rite Baptism and Chrismation.) Some of my family had come from Belarus, from the territory of the Union of Brest (Byzantine Catholic union), and brought their icon along. My Protestant family still had it, hanging in my Grandma’s living room. I always loved it while I was young, but was brought up essentially agnostic. I came to the Church by marrying a Byzantine Catholic.

¹Icons and the Name of God. Sergius Bulgakov. vii.
²“A Word About ‘Monastery Icons’”. Fr. Anthony Nelson.
³“1504. eikón”. Bible Hub. Strong’s Concordance, et al.
⁴“How Not to Be an Accidental Iconoclast”. A Reader’s Guide to Orthodox Icons.
⁵“Create a Quiet Place for Prayer”. Orthodox Prayer.


The Godfather Baptism Killings In The Godfather, can anyone that is more familiar with the Catholic faith, tell me if Michael would be considered absolved of his sins considering that he agrees to "renounce satan and all of his works"? Having done this after all of the hits of the crime bosses are carried out?

The Baptism Murders

No, Michael Corleone would not be absolved, because he was not answering for himself.

A godparent at an infant baptism speaks on behalf of the infant.  When the priest asks, "Do you renounce Satan?" and the other questions, he's asking this of the infant to be baptized, not of the godparent. The godparent answers because the infant can't speak for him/herself at that age.

An older child or adult being baptized would answer the questions for him/herself.


According to Protestantism, what is the significance of Jesus and the Mount of Transfiguration? Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the story of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Matthew's version is provided below.

It seems that each writer simply records that the event occurred, but none of them seem to indicate why it was important.  Did it fulfill prophecy?  Was it just another authentication of Jesus' divinity?  Are Moses and Elijah somehow significant to be the ones speaking with Jesus?

According to Protestant understanding (and Catholic if it carries over), what is the significance or importance of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration?

  And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his
  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was
  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his
  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them
  Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord,
  it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents
  here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He was
  still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a
  voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am
  well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they
  fell on their faces and were terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched
  them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” 8 And when they lifted up
  their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

  9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
  “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the
  dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say
  that first Elijah must come?” 11 He answered, “Elijah does come, and
  he will restore all things. 12 But I tell you that Elijah has already
  come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they
  pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”
  13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John
  the Baptist.  [Matthew 17:1–13 (ESV)]

John 5:39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me...

A common refrain in sermons (and I've used this myself!) on the Transfiguration is that Jesus is being shown to be "the Word."

Historically, Jesus referred to the Scripture as "the Law and the Prophets," referencing a common idiom of the time.  Of these,

Moses is clearly the "Lawgiver," in that he is identified with the Covenant most closely.
Elijah is the "Prophet," the first in a line and the prototype of many.

By appearing with "the Law" (Moses) and "the Prophets" (Elijah), Jesus is shown to be fufilling all of Scripture.


How voluntary is original sin in Adam's descendants? In this article, in the § "How Voluntary," the Catholic Encyclopedia goes into detail to show that Original Sin is somehow voluntary.
But I don't understand the reasoning. Can someone more theologically minded either go through it step by step for me or explain it in a way that is easier for me to understand?
Here is the particular passage (under the section "how voluntary" in the article linked above):

Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of
another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I
am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard
to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible
for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense
of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation
of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, "without
absurdity it may be said to be voluntary"

I am thinking that living in America, a hyper-individualistic country, has sort of blinded me to this "law of solidarity, admitted by common sentiment, which attributes to children a part of the shame resulting from the father's crime."
Although the modern Catechism downplays this, the idea seems to still be present when it says that original sin "is proper to each individual," (CCC 405).
The council of Trent says that it "is in each one as his own (Session V, first decree, point 3)," which I take "proper to each individual" to mean.
I saw this explanation on another forum, which seems to be recapitulating what St. Thomas says to account for it:

"When our father acts as an individual, we are not guilty of his sin;
but when our father acts as representative of the family, of which we
are a member, then the whole family sins with the father. It's this
sense in which we have sinned with Adam, in the sense that he acted
not just as an individual man, but as representative of the whole
human race."

To summarize (as this is all rather confused):
How is original sin voluntary at all?
How is original sin in each one of us as if it were our own?
Was it the case that we were all obscurely present in Adam? The father analogy doesn't make any sense to me at all. If my father sins, his sin is his own, even if he acts as representative of the family. Is "acting as representative of the family" somehow fundamentally different?
What really perplexes me about this is that it seems to make acceptable something which I had thought was a modern misinterpretation of original sin, racial shame. It seems like, if we are truly guilty of the sins which we have no consciousness of, as long as they were committed in the past by someone who acted as our representative, then modern white people, or at least the descendants of slave-holders, truly inherit a sin which is somehow voluntary for them (and possibly even present in us as if it were our own?).

Yes, St. Thomas discusses this question in De Malo q. 4 a. 1 "Whether Any Sin Is Contracted by Way of Origin (ex origine)?" (Latin) arg./ad 1:

It is said in Ecclesiasticus (15, 18) “Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him,” from which it can be understood that sin, which is the spiritual death of the soul, depends upon the will. But nothing that man contracts by way of his origin depends upon his will. Therefore man contracts no sin by way of origin.

Reply to 1. The sin that is contracted by way of origin is called voluntary by reason of its principle, namely, the will of the first parent, as we have said (in the Response).

Commenting on Romans 5:12 ("Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."), St. Thomas addresses the "difficulty" that

defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment.

Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person’s sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature.

Ibid. n. 410.2 gives the analogy of how the body parts of a sinner share in the guilt of the sinner (e.g., a killer can't say: "I didn't kill; my hand did!" or "I did kill; but my hand that pulled the trigger didn't."):

Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand’s or foot’s will but from the whole person’s will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent.


Will we not recognize our loved ones? When Christ comes and our loved ones are raptured up, will we have no memory of them. I struggle with the idea that my child won't recognize or remember me or I her.

Jesus Christ said that he will come back in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). I wrote the details about it here (check my post).

How will Jesus be recognized at the time of "Second Coming"?

We have now access to the kingdom of God after we die. After we die, we will be like angels in heaven exactly like Jesus taught Saduccees in Matthew 22. I am sure you will recognize your child just like the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah in transfiguration.


What does it mean to test God? I remember that while Jesus was being tempted in the desert by the devil, the devil had asked Him to jump down from a height, because the angels would be sure to rescue Him. But Jesus answered that one should not test God.

What does it mean to "test" God?

In this context, it meant to demand that God prove Himself.

My answer to this question address this, as does the one on the link @Caleb provided in the note above.

The short version of it is that throughout Biblical history, from the Exodus on, God has shown little patience with people demanding He prove that He exist, particularly the Israelites, who had seen His miracles time and time again.

In this context, the conversation could be paraphrased as this, (and this is a rough paraphrase, reading in my understanding of the context):

Satan is tempting Jesus to prove who God is, and who He is.  Satan already knew who He is, so the essence of Satan's asking Jesus to do this is "Oh, yeah, if you're God's son, and God is so powerful, then prove it."  Christ, recognizing Satan's goading as a mockery of God, refused.  In doing so, He showed not only His obedience to God the Father, but also His perfection and inability to be goaded and tempted by Satan.

Satan's temptation was no different than the mocking given to Jesus in Matthew 27:37-42.


Who are the origin of Hebrew people and the land ? Genesis 40:15 I found the word Hebrew appear in Genesis 40:15

  New International Version I was forcibly carried off from the
  land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve
  being put in a dungeon.

I'm unable to understand the sentence of the verse above.... because to me it can mean :
A. Joseph is not a Hebrew but he live in the land of the Hebrews before
B. Joseph is a Hebrew and he is indirectly telling to whom he talking with that he is a Hebrew.

  New Living Translation For I was kidnapped from my homeland, the
  land of the Hebrews, and now I’m here in prison, but I did nothing
  to deserve it.

This verse is clearer to me, it's B.
But still I'm lost as I can't find in the Bible how is the origin of Hebrews people and the Hebrew Land even after I go back to the story from Abraham.

Abraham is from Ur-Kasdim, and from this wiki it said it's in the land of Mesopotamia. And wiki also said that this is Abraham's native land. So my own conclusion : Abraham is not a Hebrew, and I think he is Sumerian.

Later on Abraham is in Canaan land, which I assume the natives there are Canaanites.
Next, I think Isaac was born in Canaan Land. Later, I think Jacob was also born in Canaan Land.
After that I'm lost as it's not clear to me where the 12 children were born and their native. Maybe because I didn't read the story thoroughly.

  A man who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew.

I found that Abraham is referred as a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13.
But how did he get it ? I mean when I put the story-teller position is in around at the actual time of the event, then where is the land of the Hebrews at the time of Genesis 14:13 happen ? Who are the other Hebrews besides Abraham at that time ?

Abraham is the patriarch of the Hebrew people. All the other Hebrew people are descended from him, or married into their group, or were attached to them as servants.

Abraham had 318 trained servants accompany him to rescue his brother Lot who was kidnapped in Genesis 14. This site (https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html?article=509) claims that Abraham had a retinue of about 2,000 people, including his children and servants.

The only land that Abraham owned was what he purchased as a grave site for his wife. He was a nomad, but often stayed among the Canaanites.


What is Christian about Christian Kabbalah? There is a form of Jewish mysticism called “Kabbalah”. There is also a Christian form of this, called “Cabalah” or “Christian Kabbalah”. What is specifically Christian about Christian Kabbalah? How does it diverge from its Jewish roots to give a specifically Christian flavour to this form of mysticism?

As luck would have it, last year I read the theses of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), who tried to integrate Kabbalah with a broadly Christian worldview. I don't know how much his approach is typical of later Christian use of Kabbalah - it strikes me as rather idiosyncratic, though I wouldn't be surprised if other writers followed his basic line of thought. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Kabbalah to identify specific differences between Christian and Jewish practitioners; my impression is that they are doing the same sort of thing at a broad level, even if their conclusions are different.
For Pico, recall that the scholastic project, associated par excellence with Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, was an effort to provide an integrated system of knowledge encompassing Christian revelation, classical philosophy, and the laws of nature. All of these present aspects of the divine law. Scholastic procedure is based on rational dialogue about texts and authorities, including the Bible, certain truths accessible to human reason, and the world itself. (For the universe as a book, compare Galileo in Il Saggiatore, though the concept is much older.) The method "works" - it allows us to learn true things and reject false things - because our reasoning faculties are founded in the divine order.
One of Pico's aims was to add Kabbalah into the mix. He saw it as a unique and powerful form of knowledge, revealed to Moses by God. It was intimately connected to the structure of the natural world, and to the Bible text, through gematria of the Hebrew language, and other forms of numerology. I think that for Pico, Kabbalah was not about the mystical journey of the soul; it was more like a new intellectual tool that could be applied to philosophical and theological problems. His "Cabalistic conclusions" (the last section of the Conclusiones sive Theses DCCCC) asserts that Kabbalah is a practical form of metaphysics (3rd thesis), and can only be worked through rational intellect (12th thesis). He thought that anyone who follows his procedures would be forced to admit the veracity of Christian doctrine on the Trinity and on Jesus, just as one is persuaded by any argument in scholastic disputation (5th thesis).
An example is the 32nd thesis, deriving a reference to Jesus from three OT texts (with my translation):

Si duplex aleph quod est in textu, Non auferetur sceptrum, etc. coniunxerimus ad duplex aleph, quod est in textu, Deus possedit me ab inicio, et ad duplex aleph, quod est in textu, Terra autem erat inanis, per viam Cabale intelligemus, ibi Jacob de illo vero Messia locutum, qui fuit Iesus Nazarenus.
If we join the double aleph which is in the text The sceptre will not be taken away, etc. [Genesis 49:10] to the double aleph which is in the text God possessed me from the beginning [Proverbs 8:22] and to the double aleph which is in the text But the earth was empty [Genesis 1:2], we may understand by the method of Kabbalah, that Jacob spoke there of the true Messiah, who was Jesus of Nazareth.

We see that the passage in Genesis 49, commonly understood as Messianic, is connected through a "Kabbalistic" hermeneutic to two other verses which both contain two aleph letters. The link is meant to show that the Messiah foreseen by Jacob is identified with Wisdom (the "me" of Proverbs 8:22) and with the creation (Genesis 1); this means he has to be a Messiah on the cosmic level, rather than a mere political hero. I imagine that the numerology of two alephs in three verses is also meant to indicate the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity - Pico doesn't spell this out, but it's very much the kind of thing he does elsewhere.
Pico also builds Christian interpretations into the Kabbalistic "Tree of Life". I don't know enough about the scheme to give any helpful comment on it. The whole thing is incredibly obscure - one might even say "esoteric".
In summary, this instance of Christian Kabbalah is about incorporating the "vocabulary" and methods of Kabbalah into the service of (1) Christian metaphysics, and (2) apologetics. It is seen as a sort of secret key to the way that the world works, beyond the traditional doctrinal and philosophical sources. Therefore, Kabbalistic practice is held to be useful in supporting Christian doctrine and convincing others of its truth. This obviously differs from the Jewish view.


Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 that "even though we once knew Christ by means of the flesh [ kata sarka], we know him thus no longer What was Paul trying to say here?
"We know him  thus no longer"

The question seems to be finding something that simply isn't there.

Consider other translations of this verse, e.g. CSB:

  From now on, then, we do not know anyone from a worldly perspective.
  Even if we have known Christ from a worldly perspective, yet now we no longer know him in this way.

It's talking about how we should relate to other people, at a spiritual rather than physical level.

There's not the slightest insinuation that any of Jesus's teachings are no longer relevant.


What Justification can be found in revealing contradictions within the Bible? With various, claimed, contradictions within biblical text,

  Jeremiah 17:4 - ...it [anger] will burn forever.
  Jeremiah 3:12 - ...And I will not remain angry forever.

I have seen many that have broken down the text, but we seem, as a society, and many of those that I know that claim much the same, accept things like black holes, or holes in space-time, and other very real seeming intuitive contradictions that have a very real impact on the nature of reality.
People seem content to believe that the nature of reality is not what we thought it was, and find logical contradictions in the truth of the nature of reality, but find it easy to tear down religiously philosophical views. What possible justification can be found in taking these seeming opposing view points?

Here the skeptic attempts to pit Jeremiah 3:12 (a promise to Israel that God will not be angry with them forever) and Jeremiah 17:4 (a statement that God’s anger over sin had been kindled and will burn forever) against each other.

In Jer. 3 God is calling Israel to repent of their sin and turn back to him and promises that his anger will not burn against them forever if they do. In the second passage, God is referring to those who do not turn back to him and how his anger against sin will never end. Thus, the contexts reveal that what is being addressed are two totally different situations. One addresses God’s forgiveness of persons, the other God’s holy hatred of sin. They are simply not even talking about the same things and thus cannot be contradictions.

Also, worth noting is that “forever” in this case is a hyperbolic statement meant to show the seriousness of the offense.