If Adam is an allegorical character, which Bible character in messianic genealogy is the first real human? Whenever a question is posed about Adam, Eve, or other characters and events described in the book of Genesis, inevitably some answers state that these events are allegorical. So I would like an answer from Christians who consider the Genesis account to be an allegory: When in the scriptures does allegory stop and reality begin?

Specifically, for those who consider the early part of the Genesis account an allegory, which Bible character in the line that leads from Adam to Jesus Christ is the first real, non-allegorical human being?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose teachings are accepted in the various "New Church" or Swedenborgian denominations, stated that all of the early stories of Genesis up to the point of Eber in Genesis 11:14-16 are purely symbolic.
In the introduction to his interpretation of Genesis 11 he states:

The historical events mentioned up to now, apart from those concerning Eber, are not true but made-up. This can be be seen from the details given in this chapter concerning the tower of Babel.  (Arcana Coelestia #1283)

Elsewhere in the same work he makes several similar statements:

From here [Genesis 5:1] down to Eber in chapter 11 the names used nowhere mean actual persons, but real things. (Arcana Coelestia #470)
Everything put together as history from Genesis 1 down to Eber in chapter 11 means something different from what appears in the literal meaning, and . . . the historical narratives there are purely made-up history, which was customary among the most ancient people. (Arcana Coelestia #1020)
This chapter [Genesis 10], and the next as far as Eber, continue the most ancient style . . . The names in this chapter, apart from Eber and his descendants, are used to mean just so many nations - just so many nations as constituted the Ancient Church, a Church that was spread abroad widely throughout areas surrounding the land of Canaan. (Arcana Coelestia #1140)
From Genesis 1 down to this point [Genesis 12:1], or rather, down to Eber, the narratives have not consisted of true history but of made-up history, which in the internal sense meant things that are heavenly and spiritual. In this and subsequent chapters, however, they are not made-up but true historical narratives, which in the internal sense in like manner mean things that are heavenly and spiritual. This may become clear to anyone simply from the consideration that it is the Word of the Lord. (Arcana Coelestia #1403)

Swedenborg, like many other commentators, saw Eber as the father of the Hebrew nation:

These [the sons of Joktan listed in Genesis 10:26-29] were just so many nations consisting of the families of Eber. This becomes clear from their condition at that time. As stated already, in the most ancient times nations lived distinguished into separate families, and families into houses. Each nation recognized one father from whom it took its name. When the sons of one father multiplied, they in a similar way constituted houses, families, and nations, and so on; as did those who were the sons of Joktan. This becomes clear from the sons of Jacob who at a later time when they multiplied constituted tribes, each one of which recognized as its father, and took its name from, one of the sons of Jacob. But taken all together they were descended from Jacob, and were called Jacob. In the same way these nations were descended from Eber and were called the Hebrews. (Arcana Coelestia #1246, italics added)

Though Swedenborg considered Eber to be the first real, non-symbolic person in the Bible, from there to Terah, Abraham's father, there is only a genealogy, with no stories attached to the names. Terah's story is told in Genesis 11:24-32. By the time the stories of Abraham begin in Genesis 12, the style of the Biblical narrative has shifted decisively from its earlier mythical and symbolic style to a much more historical style.
Because of all of this, present-day Swedenborgians generally consider real, non-symbolic (non-allegorical) people to start somewhere between Eber and Abraham.
However, I should add that even after that point, Swedenborg and Swedenborgians still consider the Bible narrative to have a symbolic, spiritual meaning. And many present-day Swedenborgians do not think it is necessary to insist that the events described in the Bible from Genesis 12 onward took place historically exactly as described in the Bible narrative.


Which, if any, of the seven Church Councils viewed as "Ecumenical" by Eastern Orthodox Christians are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church? I have heard various answers to this question in the blogo- and wiki-spheres, but I would be interested in knowing what has been officially stated by the Roman Catholic Church in Bulls, Encyclicals, canons, etc.

These are the Councils that are viewed as canonical within the Eastern Orthodox Church:

I - 1st Council of Nicea - 325
II - 1st Council of Constantinople - 381
III - Council of Ephesus - 431
IV - Council of Chalcedon - 451
V - 2nd Council of Constantinople - 553
VI - 3rd Council of Constantinople - 680-681
VII - 2nd Council of Nicea - 781

The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically considered the Council of Trullo in 692 as an extension of the 6th Ecumenical Council and I understand that this is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, so I would also be interested in the official Roman Catholic position on this council.

I am not looking for private opinions expressed by Roman Catholic clerics or hierarchs, even if consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine.  I would like to know the official, stated position of the Vatican.

Each and every one of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils are recognized as valid councils by the Catholic Church. No Roman Pontiff has ever decreed it otherwise. You will not find any Papal Bulls or any other decrees of condemnations on this point!

In fact, any truly orthodox Catholic website will always list the first seven Ecumenical Councils in the list of their 21 recognized Ecumenical Councils.

Although the Council in Trullo is not officially recognized as an "Ecumenical" Council  by the Church, there is so be found no formal condemnation of the council either.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about the Council of Trullo:

  Rome had recognized fifty of the Apostolic Canons, therefore the other thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and as inspired teaching (see APOSTOLIC CANONS).

  In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

  The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO REVISITED: ECUMENISM AND THE CANON OF THE COUNCILS states that neither the Pope or his Legate signed this document. The Emperor indeed had hoped for an Ecumenical Council, but the West was not represented!

  The space for the signature of “the pope of Rome,” the second
  after the emperor, is indeed blank in the manuscripts, showing that the
  pope did not attend the council personally or through a delegate, but
  room had been made for the later papal reception (“confirmation”) of the
  council.

  After the signature of “Paul the Bishop of Constantinople” in the
  third place, there follow those of patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and
  Jerusalem—disproving the assertion of certain Western polemists that
  these patriarchs did not take part in the council, and that therefore it was
  not ecumenical (emphasis mine). Of the 227 participants at the Trullo Council, 190 were
  from the patriarchate of Constantinople; the others were the patriarch of
  Alexandria, 24 Antiochians, two participants from the patriarchate of Jerusalem,
  and ten bishops from Illiricum orientale. - (Page 16).

  In more recent times, Pope Paul VI cited the Trullan Council (c. 13) to
  confirm the tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches regarding the
  married clergy.54 And Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic constitution
  promulgating the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, referred expressly to the first canon of Nicaea II, which confirmed the canons of
  “the six holy and universal synods,” thus implicitly recognizing the Trullan
  Council as the sixth ecumenical council. - (Page 22).


Why does a beheaded saint have the halo above the stump? Many Christian martyrs have been beheaded, and they are often shown in art carrying their own severed heads. Sometimes, the halo appears not around the head, but where the head should be, as in the following French examples:

St Denis, on the facade of Notre Dame de Paris (nineteenth century restoration).

Martyrdom of St Denis, in the Pantheon (Paris), by Léon Bonnat. Here, there are two halos in different styles!

A beheaded bishop and martyr (possibly St Denis again) in the Petites Heures of Jean de Berry; flanked by St Stephen with his stone and St Lawrence with his griddle (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Latin 18014, f. 105r). I don't know who the saint is behind them, with the top of his head removed and carrying his own brain - St James the Less, maybe?

What is the rationale behind showing the halo above the stump, instead of around the head? I am looking for answers that can speak to the symbolic purpose of the halo, and of the common practice of showing saints carrying their own body parts - not an answer based solely on aesthetics.

According to Wikipedia, the halo was initially used for Jesus as a symbol of His Glory. Applied to the saints, it could be the outpouring of God's Glory, often talked about in the Bible, where the living water would flow from you, or His Light shine from you.
If the position of the halo is usually from the Head of the body then I would make the assumption that the glory does not come from the physical body/head but from the soul/spiritual body/head.


Which, in Catholic belief, is the higher form of prayer - the Lord's Prayer/Our Father, or the Eucharist? In his answer to a related question, Andrew Leach has discovered a text of Pope Benedict XVI to the effect that the Eucharist is the highest form of prayer in the Church:

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment".

("Homily for the Ordination to the Priesthood", May 3 2009)

Similarly, the "Instrumentum Laboris" or planned agenda for the 2005 Ordinary Synod on the Eucharist states that

  The Eucharist is the most sacred and highest form of prayer. It is the Great Prayer.

(Chapter I, Section 34)

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a section on prayer focusing on the Lord's Prayer, states (quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas):

  The Lord's Prayer is the most perfect of prayers. . . . In it we ask, not only for all the things we can rightly desire, but also in the sequence that they should be desired.

(Paragraph 2763; the quote is from the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 3, Article 9, "Whether the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer are fittingly assigned?")

Do these two statements form an opposition or contradiction in the mind of the Church? If so, has this contradiction ever been resolved or even discussed by Church officials or by major Catholic theologians?

Short Answer: there isn't a contradiction

A reference to the larger treatment of both Prayer and the Eucharist in the Catechism, and not taking out of context the official teaching should prevent seeing a contradiction in what the Pope said (which conformed to the agenda of the 2005 Ordinary Synod).

Amplification

The answer is within the brief quote from the Pope (per @AndrewLeach's entry that you linked to) if we look at the whole quote.

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment": the Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic adoration, Lectio divina, the Holy Rosary, meditation. All these expressions of prayer, which have their centre in the Eucharist, fulfil the words of Jesus in the priest's day and in all his life: "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (Jn 10: 14-15).

For starters:  the Church teaches through the Catechism (1324) that

  1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."

The Catechism as a whole addresses all elements of Christian life, as the Church sees them.  This includes prayer: all of Section IV of the Catechism covers Prayer.  Prayer in general is thus a subset of the larger thing, Christian life, as addressed in all 2865 articles.

The "apparent" contradiction looks like taking things out of context. I've fallen into the context problem myself more than once.

It is worth noting that the context of the Pope's remarks is an address to clergy, who have a further obligation for more and daily prayer than the laity.

There isn't a competition between the Eucharist and the Our Father, nor does the Pope's message and commentary imply that, nor will you find an "in church" source that agrees that there is a conflict.

The two are in harmony. (See Catechism 2770-2772 below).   This is ably demonstrated during the Mass, since one of the prayers included is the Our Father, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (cf Roman Missal, 3d edition).

In describing the Eucharist as a prayer (per the Pope's citation) rather than as a rite or a celebration of thanksgiving, Pope Benedict names it both an act of prayer and then discusses other forms of prayer.  His meaning (in context) is that the Eucharist is also a a form of prayer.  (Usually, a great collective prayer).

The authority of a Pope: his utterances, encyclicals, and commentaries can be authoritative without having to be ex cathedra.   He is the Head of the Church, and the Head of the Magisterium of the Church, which is the church's ultimate teaching authority. That this quote is in accord with a previous proceeding of the Synod argues that there isn't a conflict.

The Our Father as the Perfect Prayer?  Sure it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

It was passed down from Jesus to his Disciples, so you can (from the Trinity perspective) say that God(The Son) gave this prayer to His People/The Faithful -- since He is perfect, the prayer is perfect.

From the Catechism

  2765 The traditional expression "the Lord's Prayer" - oratio Dominica - means that the prayer to our Father is taught and given to us by the Lord Jesus.  The prayer that comes to us from Jesus is truly unique: it is "of the Lord."  On the one hand, in the words of this prayer the only Son gives us the words the Father gave him: he is the master of our prayer. On the other, as Word incarnate, he knows in his human heart the needs of his human brothers and sisters and reveals them to us: he is the model of our prayer.

The harmony is confirmed in the Eucharistic celebration itself.

  After the chalice and paten have been set down, the Priest, with hands joined, says:
  At the Savior’s command and formed by divine teaching, we dare to say:
  He extends his hands and, together with the people, continues:

And everyone says the Our Father.  (Ref = Liturgy of the Eucharist, Roman Missal, 3rd edition)

Bottom line:

There isn't a conflict
There are multiple forms of prayer.
When the Eucharist is seen as a prayer, it is consistent with the position of the Eucharist in the Faith (source and summit of the faith) that it is the highest form of prayer, or as the Pope said it, the highest act of prayer.
The Pope has sufficient authority to make such an observation as amplification of the teachings in the Catechism.
That the Eucharistic celebration includes the Our Father looks like a strengthening of that statement: the highest act of prayer should include "the perfect prayer" within it.

  2770 In the Eucharistic liturgy the Lord's Prayer appears as the prayer of the whole Church and there reveals its full meaning and efficacy. Placed between the anaphora (the Eucharistic prayer) and the communion, the Lord's Prayer sums up on the one hand all the petitions and intercessions expressed in the movement of the epiclesis and, on the other, knocks at the door of the Banquet of the kingdom which sacramental communion anticipates.

  2771 In the Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer also reveals the eschatological character of its petitions. It is the proper prayer of "the end-time," the time of salvation that began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and will be fulfilled with the Lord's return. The petitions addressed to our Father, as distinct from the prayers of the old covenant, rely on the mystery of salvation already accomplished, once for all, in Christ crucified and risen.

  2772 From this unshakeable faith springs forth the hope that sustains each of the seven petitions, which express the groanings of the present age, this time of patience and expectation during which "it does not yet appear what we shall be." The Eucharist and the Lord's Prayer look eagerly for the Lord's return, "until he comes."


How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination? Jehovah's Witnesses are known to have no pastors or priests, because having pastors or priests would go against their theology. Instead, they have "elders". From an outsider's perspective, elders appear to function in the same way as the priests or pastors from other Christian denominations, namely because these elders do not include women. Women, however, are allowed and encouraged to become ministers and preach the gospel door to door.

What are the requirements for a person to become an elder? What type of training do elders have? And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology? A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible?

I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses my entire life, 35 years, and was recently appointed as an elder.

What are the requirements for a person to become an elder? - They have to fulfill the requirements mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

What type of training do elders have? - When they are first appointed as elders they usually have had the same training as all other members of the congregation; years of personal bible study and regular meeting attendance. After they are appointed they get ongoing training every few years at different seminars.

And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology? - Christian history - yes. Biblical studies - I guess so (not sure what you mean). theology - no, unless they got that training when they were part of another religion.

A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible? - We are allowed to read any bible we choose. During our meetings it is preferred that we use the New World Translation so we can be on the same page (pun intended).


What is the function of dreams according to Christianity? Various people claim to have seen Jesus reveal himself to them in dreams.
We also know from the OT that God may use dreams to communicate a prophecy of the future.
What is the general thought of the function of dreams when none of these things occur? A natural phenomenon of the human body?

In the Bible, they often mention visions as prophecies or a supernatural appearance by Jesus or other biblical figures. They give the person receiving the vision a sense of spiritual clarity and revelation. Evelyn Underhill mentions these visions as "Corporeal - A supernatural manifestation of an object to the eyes of the body. It may take place in two ways: either a figure really present strikes the retina and there determines the physical phenomenon of the vision, or an agent superior to man directly modifies the visual organ and produces in the composite a sensation equivalent to that which an external object would produce." You can read more about this phenomenon on Wikipedia: Vision (spirituality).


Why Moses is not Sargon I? This is not going to be a question about the Bible or God but I believe that is related with the Christianity. I believe in God, I came to my Savior several years ago but recently a friend sent me a website (Spanish language) where the author presented some evidence about how "Sargon I" and Moses have a similar history (see the section around image #15).

I know we have to defend our faith, so how can I refute that argument about Sargon and Moses?

Claims

There are no sources that claim Moses and Sargon of Akkad are the same person, but many sources do claim that the stories are similar enough to suggest one borrowing from the other. The most notable being that the information we have about Sargon places him in a basket sent down a river, just as Exodus does with Moses.

  Similarities between the Neo-Assyrian Sargon Birth Legend and other infant birth exposures in ancient literature, including Moses, Karna, and Oedipus, were noted by Otto Rank in 1909. The legend was also studied in detail by Brian Lewis, and compared with a number of different examples of the infant birth exposure motif found in European and Asian folk tales. He discusses a possible archetype form, giving particular attention to the Sargon legend and the account of the birth of Moses. Joseph Campbell has also made such comparisons.
  Sargon of Akkad - Comparisons in Ancient Literature - Wikipedia

Specifically, a story of Sargon's birth places him in a basket and has him sent down the river, much like Moses' birth as detailed in Exodus.

Sources of these tales

Moses' life, including the stories of his birth, are recorded in Exodus. Different scholars will date the writing of Exodus more conservatively or more liberally from the 15th Century BC to the 7th Century BC. The chronology of the story places Moses in the 15th Century BC, however.

Sargon lived and ruled in the 23rd Century BC. However, it seems that most of what we know about him, including the events of his story similar to Moses', are from cuneiform tablets written in about 650 BC called The Legend of Sargon. These tablets were discovered as part of the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh in the 19th Century AD.

Analysis

There is no doubt that Sargon lived long before Moses. However, neither has surviving stories that clearly out-date the other, therefore there is no bibliographic evidence that the later one is borrowing from the earlier one. But, there is good scholarship in dating the writing of Exodus to the 7th Century BC and the tablets we have of Sargon are also from the 7th Century BC. Additionally, we know that Israel, the originator of the stories of Moses, was in the area where the stories of Sargon would have been kept and read in the 7th Century BC. This should lead one to conclude that the story of Sargon influenced the story of Moses.

Conversely, There is decent scholarship in dating the writing of Exodus much earlier than the 7th Century BC. This lends credence to the idea that Exodus influenced The Legend of Sargon.

Like most claims of authorship, dating, and syncretism, this comes down to which bits of evidence you find more convincing. My impression is that most scholars  find the evidence suggesting that The Legend of Sargon influenced Exodus the most convincing. So if you want to "prove" that the stories of Moses influenced the stories of Sargon, you need to convince the other party that Exodus was written earlier than the 7th Century BC and that there is little reason to think that the tablets we have of The Legend of Sargon is not a copy of earlier writings.

Miscellaneous Sources

The Legend of Sargon of Akkad - Ancient History Encyclopedia
The Legend of Sargon Translation - Fordham University
Book of Exodus - Authorship - Wikipedia
Mosaic Authorship - Wikipedia


How do creationists explain the genetic diversity of animals after Noah's Ark? One of the comments on How did all the animals fit into Noah's ark? asked "How does one propose to produce the various species/sub-species simply from 'some sort of cat', after the fact?" This was in response to how Noah brought a 'kind' of cat into the ark and now we have pumas, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, etc. I was curious myself and another person suggested asking this as a new question.

Basically, the argument would go along the lines of..."How does a single breeding pair turn into both Chihuahuas and Great Danes in under 5000 years? If Noah’s ark had only 1 pair of each kind, the speed of evolution required to get some of the variation that exists needs to be much faster than reality." (This was taken from http://anadder.com/noahs-ark-and-evolution which has a few other points for this argument)

How do Young Earth Creationists answer this?

Scientifically speaking, evolution is not required for variations within a species.  The only requirement is that all of the genetic information seen in the species today was present in the first generation.  From then on, species experience the isolation of genes through geographic and other factors.

The breeding of new species of dogs does not produce new genetic information--it merely isolates particular genetic information that is already present in the species.  This is a key point--selective breeding does not result in any new information, but actually the loss of information, as only the chosen genes are kept.

In cattle, selective breeding often results in weaknesses within a certain breed.  Hereford cattle are quite susceptible to Pink Eye, but if you have Hereford Angus cross, the weakness in the Hereford Breed, that resulted in a loss of genetic resistance to Pink Eye, is merged back with the lost genetic information that is still present in the Angus breed, yielding a herd with higher genetic resilience.

Different breeds of dogs can still interbreed with each other, as can different breeds of cattle, so there is no new species and no evolution.  Evolution is the creation of new species--variation within a kind is not evolution.

Dogs have, indeed, shown a higher variability than other species, but they are all still dogs.  Another key point, though, is that this doesn't happen in nature, but with a great deal of intervention and unnatural forces brought to bear upon the process (by humans).

The word used in Genesis is probably best translated "kind".  Noah didn't bring Chihuahuas, Poodles, Great Danes, Labrador Retrievers, Beagles, and every other kind of dog.  He brought two mutts, which is basically what you get if you take all the breeds and interbreed them together to undo the genetic isolation.

Furthermore, Noah didn't bring a Chinese, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Russian, an Arab, a European, a Jew, an African, and a Hawaiian.  There were only eight people, but those eight people contained all the genetic information necessary to produce the variations we see today that have been caused by genetic isolation through geographic and other factors.

There are a lot of resources online about this.  Here's just one.


Parallel German (Martin Luther's 1534) and English Bible in PDF format? I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist?

I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking):

If you are looking for a free digital (non-pdf) solution, The Sword Project allows for multiple Bibles to be viewed at once, and does include as one of its available Bibles:

  German Luther Übersetzung von 1545 (moderne Rechtschreibung)

Unfortunately, depending on your needs, this version includes modern German spellings, and appears to be an edition a few years later.  Additionally, while it is not in PDF, it should be accessible on a variety of platforms.


What is the difference between Irresistible Grace and the Immaculate Conception? So, there's a Calvinist dogma called "Irresistible grace" which I take to mean that some people are unable to resist the call of God and will do the "Godly thing" against their freewill (or instead of their freewill).

And then there is The Immaculate Conception, which is the Doctrine that The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin, thus giving her the power to follow her freewill perfectly and not the normal corrupt passions that drag the rest of us down.

So, according to the Catholic Church, why do we say she had freewill instead of saying she submitted to irresistible grace?

Also, is there a sense that some of the Apostles and/or Patriarchs got to a point where they acted as if they were following their conscience perfectly, the way Our Lady did?

If your interpretation of Selective Election is correct1, the answer is fairly clear per the scriptural passage where Mary says yes (Luke 1:38 -- be it done to me according to thy will) ).  Mary had the option to say no, but didn't.  The other premise seems to preclude choice so that the option of "yes" or "no" never arises.  The Catechism describes the call to faith as an invitation by God.  An invitation can be accepted, or declined.

For what it's worth, Mary's "yes" gets a lot of emphasis in our
parish and in our diocese.  It's the topic of various homilies and
other pastoral encouragement to the laity to align our will with
that of God's.  As our pastor has put it "you are presented with
opportunities every day to 'say yes.'"
The yes or no choice for Catholics is related to repentance, which
represents a turning toward God, or a return to God depending on
how you refine the sense of that term -- repentance-- as it comes to
us from the original Hebrew and Greek terms.

The Catechism opens with the call to a relationship with God, through Christ, by God's invitation rather than His fiat.

  I. The life of man - to know and love God

  1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer
  goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.
  For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to
  man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his
  strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin,
  into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the
  fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour.
  In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy
  Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

  2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent
  forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the
  gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
  them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am
  with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this
  mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the
  Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that
  attended it."5

  3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely
  responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good
  News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the
  apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All
  Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to
  generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal
  sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

Father James Martin's commentary (he's a Jesuit scholar) is an example of this common theme, Mary's "yes" ...

  But the decision is always up to us. We are free to say yes or no to
  God.

  With her yes, Mary partners herself with the Almighty and is empowered
  to bring Christ into the world. This world-changing yes is what St.
  Bernard speaks of in one of his sermons on Mary:

  Answer with a word, receive the Word of God. Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breathe a passing word, embrace the eternal Word.

  With our own yes to God's voice in our lives we are also asked to
  nurture the word of God within us and bring Christ into the
  world—certainly not in the same way that Mary was, but in our own
  situations, and in our own ways. Using our own talents and graces we
  are called to bring Christ into the lives of others.

1 Based on this summary by Rev Bryn MacPhpail, I think that "limited atonement" may be what you mean by Selective Election

  The only interpretation of "limited atonement" that is faithful to
  Calvin's beliefs is that God does not will everyone to be saved. This
  is not to say, however, that the means to salvation (Christ's expiation
  of sin resulting in propitiation) is not accessible to all. The
  command to proclaim the gospel to every person would be cruel and
  hypocritical if Christ did not die for all sinners. Against those who
  make a travesty of Calvin's doctrine, he writes that "there is ready
  pardon for all sinners, provided they turn back to seek it" (Inst. III,
  24, 16). The problem is that "no one seeks God", therefore Christ's
  sacrifice for all only becomes effectual in those God has elected from
  all eternity.  {snip} Since "no one seeks God" Calvin asserts that "only those whom He has illumed do this"(Inst. III, 24, 17), and that God "does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others"(Inst. III, 21, 1).


Why is Christianity so popular in (South) Korea? So, in my world travels with missionaries, it seems like a missionary, if he/she doesn't come from North America, is next most likely to come from Korea*. In seminary, the proportion of Anglos & Koreans way beat out any other group. And, in my neck of the woods (Northern Virginia, just outside Washington DC), it seems like there are Korean churches all over the place.

This all stems from the fact that South Korea has a huge Christian population.

My question is, why?

What is it about the history, culture, economy, whatever of (presumably South) Korea that has made it so receptive to the Gospel?  I know that Catholic missionaries were there in the 1600s, but they've been a lot of places.  What (other than "the Holy Spirit") accounts for the tremendous receptivity and growth?

Along these lines, I'm curious

a. If there is any particular denominational emphasis (it seems like a fair number Presbyterians, but I don't know that)

b. If it is confined to South Korea or if the communist North has experienced similiar things
and

c. What the underlying causes are for this growth...

*Note: Totally unscientific claim.  Just my experiences in Europe & Central Asia.

Please excuse my short answer, I'm not very good with words :-)

The threat of North Korea is very real. Both countries are officially at war. Lethal incidents occur from time to time. All South Korean males have to fulfill a 21 month long military service which is a hard political decision due to the missing workforce for the economy. Where harm to body and life is a real threat, people do think about the life and death. They start to care about spiritual matters. South Koreans Christians are spiritually quite alive. (This is no argument trying to support growth of Christianity in SK, it solely tries to explain the vigorous spirit of SK Christians.)
Unlike in other Western Nations, Christianity is in a competitive state in South Korea. It is a major religion but has to compete with Buddhism. Buddhism is a very tolerant, non-radical religion and therefore widely accepted.
South Korea has a very hierarchal culture. Your boss is not just your boss. He is THE BOSS. How can I explain this? You simply do not speak bad of your boss. Also you do not stand up to him. Your respect to the boss is 'unlimited'. Thus, workers are very loyal and obedient. The hierarchal culture starts in the family where each member has a title. While my grandparents may greet me by my first name, I have to name them by their title. Due to the 'western' influence in our family this not that big of a deal. I think that it is the culturally induced obedience towards your superior that is reflected in the strong missionary work of South Koreans.
Christianity in South Korea is still young. It does not have the old relics and structures that the mainstream church has created in Western Europe. It's young and vibrant.
In the second world war, South Korea was occupied by Japan. There was an active persecution and deportation of Christians. Many were martyred. Since these events are only seventy years old or so, these events are still present in the memories of the older generation and have supported growth of Christians among the younger generations.

About point 5: This is what Korean relatives have told me: They themselves see this as the most important point to mention. In fact, my grandfather was close to getting killed by the Japanese military force. They locked him up with others in the church and started lighting it on fire from the outside. Yet, he managed to escape. Even though my own relatives were telling me this, I surprisingly could not find much evidence online to confirm such persecution of Christians in SK during WW2. Most information you find, will relate to persecution of Catholic Christians in the early 19th century.


Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is necessary to teach us? In Matthew 23, we are told that Yeshua addresses the multitude and his disciples:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples" Matthew 23:1

A few verses later, he says:

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master (διδάσκαλος: teacher), even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters (καθηγητής: instructors): for one is your master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8-12

Yeshua says that he is our only teacher. Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is necessary to teach us?

Mormons believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet in the sense that Abraham, Moses, Noah, and others all were. Jesus Himself appointed teachers He called apostles like Peter, James, and John. Joseph Smith is viewed pretty much the same way.
Ephesians 4:11-14

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine

So, to answer your question:

Yeshua says that he is our only teacher. Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is necessary to teach us?

For the same reason that other prophets and apostles were necessary to teach us. They act as the Lord's spokesmen here on the earth, and they teach the doctrine of Christ.
You bolded this part of the cited scripture:

And call no man your father upon the earth:

So it's worth clarifying that Mormons do not call or consider Joseph Smith as their father. Just a prophet.
Expansion of original answer as to Joseph's importance: Joseph Smith did have the unique calling to restore Christ's doctrine to the Earth in its fulness. Mormons teach about Joseph Smith simply because, if the account of Joseph Smith--and by extension, the Book of Mormon--is true, then so is the rest of what the Church teaches. All members and prospective members of the Church are asked to pray about the truthfulness of these things so that they can know for themselves. Except for this crucial bit of history and the role it plays in conversion to the fulness of Christ's gospel, Joseph Smith is no more than a prophet and teacher.


What is the LDS Law of Common Consent and why is it important? The LDS Church is perhaps unique in the idea that instruction and change within the Church isn't simply automatic — that Church leaders can't simply do what they want.  This doctrine is embodied in the LDS Church's Law of Common Consent.

What is the Law of Common Consent, including scriptural basis and official Church teachings, and why is it important?

[The Law of Common Consent] is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside.1

Scriptural Basis:

Doctrine & Covenants 20:65-those ordained need the vote of the church
Doctrine & Covenants 26:2-probable first use of 'common consent'
Exodus 24:3-people agree to do what Moses tells them is from God
Numbers 27:19-Joshua placed before the priest and congregation
Acts 15:25-chosen men sent with Paul and Barnabas
Mosiah 29:26- Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right
Alma 29:4-God grant unto us our desires, good or evil

Elder Loren C. Dunn explained the responsibilities that accompany the sustaining process (this answers why it is important):

  When we sustain officers, we are given the opportunity of sustaining those whom the Lord has already called by revelation. … The Lord, then, gives us the opportunity to sustain the action of a divine calling and in effect express ourselves if for any reason we may feel otherwise. To sustain is to make the action binding on ourselves to support those people whom we have sustained. When a person goes through the sacred act of raising his arm to the square, he should remember, with soberness, that which he has done and commence to act in harmony with his sustaining vote both in public and in private

Another good article on this subject is The Law of Common Consent, by Matthew O. Richardson. While it may not be official LDS doctrine it is well written with several citations to scriptures, prophets, and history of this practice.

1 https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng


At what point in history did Catholic priests begin to be called pastors? I have recently, within the last year or so, begun to notice the sometimes reference to Catholic Pastors.  I assume that this term is in reference to Priests.  I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic school, in 18 years, never heard the term Pastor within that context.
Is the term Pastor within the Catholic church synonymous with Priest and, if so, is it's usage recent, regional, or did I just not notice for 18 years?
Answers to this question, Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor, seem to indicate that this usage is limited to the US only.  Does this mean that it's usage within Catholicism is less than 300 years old?

In Catholicism a pastor is a priest who has the care of a particular parish (cf. Canon 515).
The New Testament word that Catholics believe refers to the lower clergy is πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros).  The etymology of the English word "priest" traces to presbuteros.  The New Testament does not refer to Christian leaders as sacerdotal priests (ἱερεύς - hierieus), but only as presbyters.  "Pastor" as a shepherding metaphor was probably present from the beginning, given that the shepherding metaphor was there from the beginning (e.g. John 21:15-17, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 5:1).
Obviously some Christians disown a sacerdotal priesthood, and therefore prefer "pastor" or "minister" rather than "priest".  For this reason there is a common notion that pastors and priests are two different things.  Yet for Catholics the technical name of the priest who has charge of a parish is the "pastor".
See also Pastor (Wikipedia) and Presbyter (Wikipedia).


Are there any denominations that do not require pastors to be college educated? I am curious if there are any denominations that do not believe in college education for church leaders such as pastors, missionaries, etc. There are many churches that do. I am asking because I do not agree with college education. I strongly believe in God-given talents and that the Holy Ghost teaches.  I know I am called, but I do not like college education.  It's too arm-chair education.  I prefer action. In another words, hands-on. That way I can apply to be the pastor of a church.

Educating yourself to be wise is foolish, as said in the scripture (Romans 1:22-23), but lately, many denominations require college education.

Amish and some Mennonites practice this. I met a Beachy Amish pastor several years ago who was selected by "lot" without needing to go to college. This practice, I believe, is based on Acts 1:26 where Matthias was selected as an Apostle by lot. This guy was not dumb or stupid by any means - he knew his Bible well, but perhaps not as much Shakespeare.

Jehovah's Witnesses ordain non-college graduates as Elders. See this answer to this question: How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination?


Did Voltaire actually say "If you want to kill Christianity, you must abolish Sunday"? Recently I was listening to a defense of the observation of the Sabbath, and within it the speaker quoted Voltaire as saying something like:

  If you want to kill Christianity, you must abolish Sunday.

I've found this quote in a number of places both online and in print, such as in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, 159, but so far I haven't found an actual reference to the writings of Voltaire.  Sadly I don't read French, so I wouldn't know how to best search for this quote in the original language either.

Did Voltaire actually say something like this?  And if so, where/when?

There is no doubt the quote is widely attributed to him.  Several sources I checked give him credit:

https://quotefancy.com/quote/929487/Voltaire-If-you-want-to-kill-Christianity-you-must-abolish-Sunday
"Sunday: The Foundation of Personal and Family Peace."  https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/sunday-the-foundation-of-personal-and-family-peace
https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-voltaire/if-you-want-to-kill-christianity-you-must-abolish-sunday
Warren Wiersbe's Commentary:  Old Testament, p. 791.  https://books.google.com/books?id=GgLq2LR_cFcC&pg=PA791&lpg=PA791&dq=%22if+you+want+to+kill+christianity...%22&source=bl&ots=NVNALdtNv3&sig=ACfU3U2VO51Yz3rmb1HYTg1MJ_JZ1rHoxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjul7CzwIXpAhXHB80KHdjtAEQQ6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22if%20you%20want%20to%20kill%20christianity...%22&f=false
https://www.quotenova.net/authors/voltaire/qddn79  [Also included are these caveats:  "There's evidence to suggest that this quote is attributed to the author, though no official sources or credible evidence could be found or has yet to be added to this page.
We're unable to confirm that this quote is completely true and correct.
We don't suggest that you cite this quote as fact without conducting your own further research..."
"Remembering the Lord's Day."  http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/pamphlets/item/600-remembering-the-lords-day
https://www.quotemaster.org/q35e822b3a6bfc912e7e5eff61671d1e0
"How Should We Keep the Sabbath?"  https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/how-should-we-keep-the-sabbath-1144

Some sources are not so sure Voltaire spoke the original:

https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/114716-love-the-joy-of-life-matthew-22d-1
The Australian Church Record, from November 24, 1927, page 11, column 1 of the pdf, uses the essence of the quote, but does not attribute it to Voltaire.  [1927-11-24.pdf, from myrrh.library.moore.edu.au]

I did not find a reference to any of Voltaire's works that may have contained the quote.
Your safest course, it seems to me, is that, in the opinion of many, the quote is Voltaire's; however, the actual source has not yet been verified.


What is the Biblical basis for the concept that demons have an odor? I've seen that in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches while doing (what I would call a type of) exorcism some claim to smell the demon. They express the smell as "sour" or something rotten.

Bible Knowledge describes the smell as putrid and toxic and also like burning sulfur.

Oral Roberts claimed he could smell them in a person, and Tom Brown Ministies says it's type discernment.

According to Let Us Reason, Joyce Meyer described the smell as a "stench."

Is there any biblical scripture that explicitly or implicitly suggests that demons have any odor?

It appears that there is no explicit reference in the bible to point to anything that suggests that demons have any odor.
However, I really wanted to make sense of this (strange for me) phenomenon, so I put some thought into how to understand this.
How do you detect if something has an odor?
You smell it... stating the obvious.
How do you smell something (like coffee)?
With your nose... again stating the obvious
So, how do you smell things in the spiritual realm like demons?
With a spiritual nose or some equivalent.
Spiritual senses
The only spiritual sense that is dominantly shown in the bible is spiritual sight.
2 Kings 6:14-17 (KJV)

Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.
And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Taking 2 Corinthians 4:18 (KJV) literally:

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

It appears from these passages that the ability to see spiritual beings is supported explicitly (for those whom God has given the ability). We can call this spiritual sight.
From spiritual eyes (sight) I would guess that it's not such a far reach to claim that other spiritual senses can exist like

spiritual ears (hear)
spiritual nose (smell)
spiritual mouth (taste)

This makes user19940's answer more complete; if something is "unclean" you can typically smell it (the way I check whether my clothes are clean :P); and if you can smell the spiritual realm then you could be able to smell spiritual beings like unclean spirits like demons (again if God gives you the ability).
This is a bit of a (weird) stretch answer I know, but I hope you found it at least as an interesting view point.


What is "Traditionalist Catholicism" Pure curiosity, I see that Mel Gibson is an adherent of Traditionalist Catholicism. Is this a part of "normal" Roman Catholicism, or some distinct branch? What are the differentiators here?

I found this information hidden at the bottom of your link:

  Mel Gibson belongs to a Catholic sect that does not accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. - Time, January 27, 2003

After some more digging, I found that the main differences are:

They still practice Tridentine Mass. This mass has a set liturgy which you can look at more closely in the above link. The most immediately distinguishable feature of tridentine mass is that it is performed almost exclusively in latin.
They hold onto some of the of the personal customs that were largely depreciated after the Second Vatican Counsel. The ones that struck me the most were:

Abstaining from meat on Fridays,
Fasting from midnight before receiving Holy Communion, and
Women wearing a headcovering in church.

It is worthy to note that the Vatican usually supports traditionalists, unless of course those traditionalists condemn modern day leadership or practices.

Most of this information was found on Wikipedia, I just tried to summarize it. There's plenty more information if you want to take a look!

EDIT (In response to a good comment by @Alypius): Here's a description of the different types of traditionalists, as described by an actual traditionalist. Religious preferences aside (I don't agree with the main gist of the article), the category description quoted below seems to be pretty succinct.

  "The first and by far the largest group consists of those Catholics who accept the acclaimed Pope and his recent predecessors as true Popes and who believe that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, albeit problematic, Council.

  ...

  The second group consists of those who are unsure about the status of the acclaimed Pope. Many such Catholics worship at Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius V (S.S.P.V.).

  The third group consists of "sedevacantist" Catholics, that is Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has not had a true Pope for some time (most consider Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope) and who, depending on the time they see as the moment the "Chair of Peter" (sede) became empty (vacante), may or may not see Vatican II as a valid Council. Many sedevacantists attend Masses offered by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.). 5"

Traditional Catholicism 101: A Brief Primer


How similar are the KJV and the Reina Valera bibles? I know that the two books are similar to each other in that they’re both very influential printed bibles, and that they’re used by the same or similar denominations of Christianity. And that both contain what are now archaic forms of English and Spanish (unless you choose more modern editions that use more modern language).

However, how similar are the contents of the two bibles? In terms of if I look at an individual sentence, will the contents be much the same. (I’m an English speaker learning Spanish)

I did some digging on the subject - there is quite a lot of information to be had, but no direct comparisons between KJV and RVR.

For example,

https://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

offers translation comparison statistics, and compares Biblical passages across different Bible versions. As these already have slightly different interpetations in English, I imagine that it is unlikely that any cross-language translation will have much significant impact.

Here is a whole magazine dedicated to the subject of Bible translation:

http://www.ubs-translations.org/bt/

And this site contains the text for the most popular translations:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

with the KJV and RVR.


Toddler song about heaven I'm looking for the name and singer/composer of a toddler song.  The words I remember are " Tap tap tap, tap tap tap, someone's building  up a place for me....building me a home in heaven.  Jesus, building me a home in heaven, Jesus building me a home in heaven...."  It was a great song to do with motions similar to the wise man built his house upon the rock.  I can't find or remember enough of the song.  It could be from the late 80s or early 90s.  Thanks.

Tap Tap Tap by Maranatha Kids on the Album Tiny Tots Pwaise vol 6
(https://music.apple.com/pg/album/tiny-tot-pwaise-vol-6/715831200)


What is a guardian angel? I have always heard of guardian angels and have probably even prayed to them, but never really knew anything about them.  What is the purpose of guardian angels and where does the belief in them come from?

The concept of guardian angels  and praying to them to protect one is deep rooted in the Catholic Church.
Many other churches and Christians also believe in existence of guardian angels based on the following Bible references:

Psalms 91:11 (NLT)

  For he will order his angels
        to protect you wherever you go.

This gives the idea that God will ask His angels to protect each person who trusts in Him on his/her way.

In Matthew 18:10 (NLT) Jesus says

  Beware that you don’t look down on any of these little ones. For I
  tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my
  heavenly Father.

This verse is often taken to mean that there is an assigned angel for each of the follower of God and those angels are in the presence of God. Many take both references cited above to mean that a single angel is assigned for a single believer. I believe rather it implies there is an assigned angel for each believer and that angel may be assigned for one or more living persons who trusts in the God.

More indirect references can be found else where in Bible. Like for instance, Hebrews 1:14 (NLT) implies that one role of angels is to care for people.

  Therefore, angels are only servants—spirits sent to care for people
  who will inherit salvation.


Caleb Name Meaning (Hebrew) I am not Hebrew expert, but I have been interested in the Hebrew meaning of my name, Caleb. There are many places that say that Caleb translates as dog, but has the meaning of the loyalty of a dog.

From a tiny bit of Hebrew knowledge I have from a YouTube channel The Bible Project, they explain the Hebrew word 'lev' (לֵב) meaning heart (video). Some websites will say Caleb as more to the Hebrew pronunciation: Kalev.

I was curious if there was any connection between 'Kalev' and 'lev' within the Hebrew language or in the Bible. I don't know much about Hebrew as a language, but would definitely like to learn!

I grew up in a bilingual English/Hebrew house and I think that wholehearted is the correct definition. It's also my son's name so I take the analysis seriously (maybe a bit too much, LOL). Caleb definitely does not mean dog in Hebrew, but when two words have the same root in Hebrew there is a connection. So the theory I understand is that Caleb has a second definition of having attributes like a dog.
In other words, people named Caleb have a name that means Whole-Hearted and have the characteristics of loyalty, boldness, friendship, etc., things that we associate with man's best friend.
P.S. - I understand that in the comments, Caleb is discussed as Whole-Hearted, but in reference to the comment: "Etymologically "whole-hearted" would be impossible since the name would have to be כֻּלֵּב Kulleb to have that meaning". The wrong vowel was called out and therefore the conclusion is inaccurate. In the quote above, there are three diagonal dots (a kibbutz) under the cuff (equivalent for "C"), which is not how Caleb, nor how Kol (whole/all) are spelled in Hebrew. Kol, meaning whole/all, is spelled with a cholam which is a dot in the upper left corner of the cuff for the "C" (כֹּל).
Caleb is spelled with a kamatz (looks like a partial plus sign), a different vowel, but gives the same sound when the words are put together (כָּלֵב). The correct pronunciation of heart in Hebrew is Kol (and heart is Laiv). Caleb is pronounced Kolaiv. So when spelled correctly and pronounced correctly, it's entirely possible (and likely) that Whole-Hearted is the correct definition.
Just arguing the vowel in the reference. I give full acknowledgment that in the conversation, people recognize the meaning as whole-hearted.
Side note: The Hebrew word for dog is pronounced Kelev, not Keleb. The Hebrew letter for "B" alternates between the b and v sounds depending on if there is a dot in the center or not. Kind of like how an h changes the s or c sounds in English.


Is there a bad part of heaven? From what I understand, by Catholics, everyone who believes in Jesus goes to Heaven, but most people go to purgatory first. When they leave purgatory, everyone is worthy of some level of Heaven. Everyone who does not believe in Jesus goes to Hell and there is a pretty nice section at the top of Hell for righteous heathens.

Protestants tend not to believe in Purgatory. There is only Heaven and Hell. It seems to me that you can get people who are really rotten but, since they believe all the requisite things, go to Heaven.

1) Do we say that if they had REALLY believed in Jesus they wouldn't have been bad and these people are actually in Hell?

OR

2) Is there a "bad" part of heaven for these souls?

If so, is this bad part good, but not as nice as the other parts of heaven and the soul experiences some torment knowing they are in the bad section

Is this bad place actively bad, but not as bad as Hell (sort of like a prison on the outskirts of heaven?)

I am interested in the types of Protestantism that flourish in America.

Related, but does not address the hell issue:

Are all humans in Heaven equal or is there also a kind of hierarchy? (Roman Catholic perspective)

It seems to me that you can get people who are really rotten but, since they believe all the requisite things, go to Heaven.

Yep, although it's not really about intellectual belief/assent, but that the person trusts God to fulfil all his promises and lives as though they do trust God, i.e., repentance.

These really rotten people are in fact every single human person. As Romans 3:10-18 says:

  “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
  All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
  there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
  “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
  “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
  “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    ruin and misery mark their ways,
  and the way of peace they do not know.”
    “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Every single person in heaven/on the new earth after resurrection is an evil, sinful, rotten human being who deserves God's wrath and destruction.

Many, probably most, Protestants recognise that several Bible passages seem to indicate that there will be different levels of reward in the afterlife. So although we can never merit acceptance by God, the good that we do will be recognised. This page by J. Warner Wallace seems like a good summary of these passages.

To paraphrase the KJV of John 14:2-3, Jesus is preparing mansions for all his people, and no one deserves a mansion, but some people's mansions will be bigger than other people's mansions. But freed from the sin of envy, when we meet someone on the new earth with a bigger mansion than our own all we will do is praise God that he was working in someone's life to a greater degree than our own!


Was Pilate also the father of the son who was healed by Jesus in John 4? I am new to Christianity, but I have read the Gospel of John and have watched a movie about Jesus. Was the Pilate in John 18:28 the same man whose son Jesus healed in John 4:46?

No. The Pilate of John 18:28 was the Roman procurator of Judea in Jesus' day. Pilate was the civil authority who thought he had the power to turn Jesus over to the Jews to be crucified. A procurator was any of various imperial officials with fiscal or administrative powers. The equivalent today might be a governor.

Regarding the "nobleman" in John 4:46-54, from the NET Notes comes the following:

  Although βασιλικός (basiliko) has often been translated “nobleman” it almost certainly refers here to a servant of Herod [Antipas], tetrarch of Galilee (who in the NT is called a king, Matt 14:9, Mark 6:14-29). Capernaum [the town where the sick son was] was a border town, so doubtless there were many administrative officials in residence there [, and this unnamed nobleman was one of them.]

Jesus healed this man's son "long distance," so to speak, because He knew this nobleman had the faith to believe Jesus would do as He said He would. There was no need for Jesus to leave what He was doing and walk about 20 miles or so from where He was (viz., Cana) to Capernaum, where the sick boy was.

In our day, Pilate would be the equivalent of the governor of, say, Pennsylvania. The nobleman would be the equivalent of the Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and Taxation; in other words, a high-level bureaucrat.

If on the other hand the nobleman was a military man (and this is a distinct possibility), he would be, approximately, the equivalent of a lieutenant, major, or even a colonel, whereas Pilate would be a general.


Which are the sins that will not be forgiven in the age to come? At Matthew 12:32 we hear some tough talk from Jesus:

  Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I wish to know whether there are other sins which fall in the category of those which   will not be forgiven in the age to come , say, desecration of the Holy Euchariat , or say,  murder of an ordained priest .  What do the Catholic Church teach about the sins which may not be forgiven in the age to come.

Actually our sermon was on just that topic.  Father said the unforgiveable sin is the one that denies Jesus for in denying Jesus you deny the Father.
Thus you believe that God is not loving nor generous and can do all things.
No there is no other sin greater than that.. all sins can be forgiven but once you denied God there is really is nothing left for you. People that deny God also deny there is any hope, it all leads to despair which is where Satan wants you to be so he take your soul as his own.


Did Abraham have faith in the future coming of Christ? R.C. Sproul's book on Romans, Chapter 10, page 106.

  "When Paul speaks of Abraham's justification as being by faith, that is shorthand for saying that Abraham was justified by the righteousness of Christ.  The only difference between our justification and Abraham's is that Abraham looked forward to the promised one."

Is there biblical evidence that Abraham looked forward to Christ.  I know that it's felt that a view of Christ in the future is given in Genesis 3:

  "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heel.”

However it is believed that this was written by Moses, long after Abraham.  Assuming that Genesis was written by Moses, was it from oral tradition that Abraham would have known, or was it direct revelation from God to Moses?  Is there some other way we can assume that Abraham and other patriarchs had knowledge of the coming of Christ?

-OP-Is there biblical evidence that Abraham looked forward to Christ.[?]

The authors of Genesis, Hebrews, and Galatians spell out the promise of God.  This means the answer is yes.

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen. 17:19
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Heb. 11:17
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3:16

And so, Abraham looked forward to Christ, to the promised seed.


Why does Paul call Peter "Cephas" in his writings? In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas.

  Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter.

But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal?

At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16:

  11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
   14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

  15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

How was their relationship as fellow apostles?

Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic.

That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:

  John 1:42 (KJV)
  42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon "Cephas." John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that "Cephas" meant "a stone."


Is the title of Jesus "Son of God" synonymous with "Messiah"? How did the New Testament writers view Jesus' title of "Son of God"? What did the early church believes about what it means?

Definitions
"Messiah" ("Christ" in Greek) is a Hebrew word that essentially means the anointed one. Prior to the crucifixion, the expectation of both Jews and Christians was that a man would arise who would be reminiscent of David, whom Samuel anointed to be king. The Messiah would deliver Israel from oppression and lead her as their king.
The NT authors and the early church saw Jesus as the Messiah; He was the deliverer from spiritual oppression, and the king of a spiritual kingdom. He would some day deliver them from physical oppression, and rule a physical kingdom.
"Son of God" essentially meant God's image bearer. The idea of a "son" in the first century was different than it is today. The term "Son of God" did not so much signify that Jesus was born, or that He had a beginning, or that He was somehow inferior to the Father, but rather that He came from God and bore His image. (cf)
Are the two synonymous?
Yes and no. They signify different things by definition, but in the Person of Christ they were seen as equally valid and important titles, and are often treated as if they were synonymous. Here is a brief sampling of places where we see this:

Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ. -Luke 4:41
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” -John 11:27
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” -Matthew 26:63
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God -John 20:30-31


Can a disfellowed JW marry after being reinstated? I was disfellowed in 2010, because of having a girlfriend outside the congregation. In 2011 we had a marriage at home affairs and in 2012 I was happily reinstated with my wife. I was jobless then and she wasn't yet baptized. In 2013 she was baptized and this year we'd love to have a wedding ceremony and a special talk at the JW assembly hall. Is this allowed or not?

If I understand you correctly, you are actually already married, but would like a Witness marriage ceremony to acknowledge that.

The fact is that Witnesses recognise civil marriages as valid. If you married before returning to the faith, then you are married in their eyes. In fact, such marriages are also perfectly acceptable for those within the faith. My sister married in a registry office. Both she and her husband were and are baptised Witnesses, and no one has suggested that their marriage is in any way invalid because they did not marry in a Kingdom Hall.

So the direct answer is No, you cannot have a marriage ceremony in your situation.

However, it is possible that some form of acknowledgement, or “renewal of vows” ceremony could be held. I have never heard of such within the Witness faith, but congregations’ bodies of elders have broad latitude (especially for weddings and funerals) to accommodate local customs. There is a handbook for elders, but it’s private, so I can’t tell you what it says about this. I have seen it, and can tell you that it’s a slim volume. I would guess that it doesn’t cover this situation, in which case your local body of elders would have to use their discretion.


Do Catholics consider Job to be historical? The Book of Job is taken by some Protestants to be an historical document, whereas others hold that its position in the Ketuvim (the Writings) never assumed that it was anything other than what we would call fiction today.

So, what is the position of the Catholic Church in regards to the historicity of Job?  Is it a play or a recount of a real event?

I don't know if Chesterton speaks for the whole Church, but he says:

  The doctors disagree, as it is the business of doctors to do;

but more to the reality of Job's construction:

  The Book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the almost insane individualism of modern times.

So, maybe the question, as pertinent as it is to hermenueiticians isn't so important to those who actually want to gain wisdom by reading Job.  Still, the New American Bible (aka the Book we use at Mass) is a little clearer. In the the introduction to Job it says:

  This is a literary composition, and not a transcript of historical events and conversations.

which isn't to say it doesn't have any "historicity" because it tells us exactly what people thought about the reasons bad things happened to good people.

And in any event, the way the Bible is organized, Job is between Maccabees and Psalms.  It is the beginning of Wisdom. (or at least the end of it is) It's not even in the same category as say, Tobit, which I'm pretty sure lots of the doctors would contend is a folk tale as well.


What is the significance of the name "Jesus"? A prominent theological understanding in Christianity is that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.  About 2,000 years ago, He entered into creation through a virgin birth and was given the name "Jesus" ("Yeshua" in Hebrew).

So, why did God the Son choose this particular name as His own at His birth?

Yeshoua (Joshua / Jesus) means "Jehovah Saves".

I'd say, that's a pretty good description of what he came to do - he came "to seek and save the lost."


What are the origins and history of shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting and similar manifestations in Christianity? I'm interested in learning about the origins and evolution throughout Church history of manifestations such as shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing or fainting attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., not due to a diagnosed medical condition). For further context, I posted a related question asking for the neurological and psychological causes of these manifestations on Psychology.SE. Feel free to check it out.
For illustrative purposes, here are two testimonials about these manifestations that were recorded in 1995 during the first few months after the beginning of the Brownsville Revival:

Brownsville Revival - Alison Ward Testimony - August 18, 1995
Amy Elizabeth Ward Mercy Seat Alison Ward Brownsville Revival Pensacola FL

I understand that events such as the Toronto Blessing (1994) and the Brownsville Revival (1995) have played a very influential role in promoting these manifestations the last two or three decades, but, what about the past? Were these relatively recent events pioneer regarding these manifestations or can we find older records of similar manifestations in Church history? What are the oldest records?

Update: according to Wikipedia the oldest records of these manifestations in Protestantism would pertain to the First Great Awakening that took place in the 18th century. However, it would seem very strange to me if there were no records prior to that. Is it truly the case that there are no records of these manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and that they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward? If so, why?

The Bible informs us of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem, at Pentecost, after Jesus’ death, resurrection and return to heaven.  However, there is no mention of the recipients shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting or falling about.  This supernatural event is described in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Spirit was “poured out” on Jews and proselytes:

The Coming of the Holy Spirit: 1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and hit filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues las the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And mat this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost: 14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.2 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: (Quotes Joel 2:28-32)

The second occasion was to a group of believing Samaritans (Acts 8) where the gospel was preached and evil spirits were cast out.  The Holy Spirit was given to believers at the laying on of the apostles’ hands.  The third was to a group of believing Gentiles (Acts 10) who had listened to Peter preaching and who heard them speaking in tongues.  Not speaking unintelligible “mumbo-jumbo” but speaking in understandable languages. These events took place circa 33 A.D.
Before we go any further, it is essential that we define who and what Christians mean by the Holy Spirit.  I speak as a Trinitarian Protestant.  The Holy Spirit is the eternal, uncreated and co-equal part of the One Being of God.  His purpose is to bring praise, honour and glory to God.  His being is entirely in harmony with the Father and the Son.  Everything He does, from convicting people of sin and drawing them to God, is entirely good, holy and part of the divine plan of salvation.  This article explains more about what the Holy Spirit does:  https://www.gotquestions.org/names-Holy-Spirit.html  I have no intention of going into the theological aspects of this third person of the Trinity, but you might find it helpful to read this article:  https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Holy-Spirit.html
I wouldn’t know where to start looking for reliable documentation on the activity of the Holy Spirit after the end of the first century, but I do have access to information concerning the Protestant Reformation which dates back to the early 1400’s with men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.  Martin Luther is usually credited with starting the movement when he posted his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517.  Nothing I’ve read about the lives of these men suggests they were invoking the Holy Spirit to cause people to shake, tremble, jerk, contort, collapse, faint or fall about.  Likewise with Protestants such as John Bunyan (who wrote Pilgrim’s Progress) and Charles Spurgeon (a famous Baptist preacher); then we have John and Charles Wesley who introduced Methodism – they were all very sober, upright and disciplined men of God.  Yes, they believed in the power of God as experienced through the Holy Spirit, and they advocated holy living. But I have never read any accounts of meetings they conducted that fit in with what you describe.
Accounts of Christians attending meetings where they were overpowered by some spirit force that resulted in them shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting or falling about came later, towards the end of the 19th century with the event of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement.
First came revival in Topeka, Kansas (January 1900), followed by the Azusa Street (Los Angeles) revival meetings in 1906 (Methodist sponsored).  Then, in 1907 came the Latter Rain Movement (Pentecostalism) resulting in the Brownsville/Pensocola revival. This was followed by the Vineyard Movement (1982) and the Toronto Blessing (1994) where expressions such as “slain in the spirit” and “holy laughter” were used to describe what went on.
If here are no records of these strange manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward, then the most obvious and simple explanation must be that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
Bearing in mind the power, authority and purpose of the Holy Spirit, I can only conclude that any manifestations that detract from the holiness of God or that fail to point people to Christ Jesus can not be attributed to Him.  I do not say this to upset or challenge Pentecostals or persons who have experienced such things.  I do not know what the origin of these strange manifestations are, only that the blueprint Christians should adhere to is that given from the Bible.


Have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus resembled Joseph? Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph?

God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

Not that I am aware of.  Since Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 make it clear that no human father was involved in the conception of Jesus, then what Joseph looked like would have no bearing on what Jesus looked like, apart from the fact that they were both Jewish. Jospeh was Jesus' adoptive father.

The very first verse of the New Testament clearly proclaims the Jewish ethnicity of Jesus. “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1).

It is evident from passages like Hebrews 7:14 that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah, from which the name "Jew" comes: “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah.”

The genealogy of Mary, Jesus' physical mother, shows that she was a direct descendant of King David.  This is in Luke chapter 3 which establishes without any doubt that Jesus was a Jew ethnically.

Since the Bible is silent about the physical appearance of Jesus, then there would be no point in anybody speculating if Jesus physically resembled his adoptive father. I have been unable to find any references to Christian discussion on this, only that Christian theologians agree Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.

EDIT: With regard to the question of Jesus’ genetic makeup, it is important to understand that the Bible tells us the the pre-mortal Jesus was the eternal and uncreated Word of God (John 1:1-3, 14). It was the eternal Word of God who left heaven in order to become the embryo in Mary’s womb. This pre-existent one had to empty Himself of the glory He had in the Godhead, alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit, to add human nature to His divine nature.

Mary’s contribution was the humanity of Jesus. The Formula of Chalcedon (451) speaks of Jesus as ‘consubstantial with us according to the manhood;’ the Athanasian Creed specifically links his manhood to the substance of his mother and that later, Protestant creeds do the same. The Westminster Confession (VIII.II), speak of him as “conceived... in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.”

Jesus had the same anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, central nervous system and the same basic genetic code as all humans.  Through Mary’s umbilical cord, he was that particular baby, the son of that particular woman who was the bearer of the whole previous genetic history of her people and the recipient of innumerable hereditary features.  He was a unique genotype precisely because Mary contributed at least half his chromosomes (as any human mother would). How the rest were contributed remains a mystery.

The one certainty is that Mary could not herself have contributed the sex-determining chromosome, Y, which is always provided by the biological father. As it was a divine act of the Holy Spirit, perhaps those chromosomes normally derived from the male parent were provided that way, the divine act which fertilized the ovum simultaneously creating twenty-three chromosomes complementary to those derived from the mother.  What we do know is that Jesus was not a clone of his mother, because then he would not have been male but would have been female. The incarnation was a unique event and humans cannot possibly give a biological break-down of every aspect of this unseen miracle in Mary’s womb. The Bible does not go into any details.

Sources: The Person of Christ by Donald Macleod p 162 (Christian Focus 1998). Sexuality & God in EL Mascal, Whatever Happened to the Human Mind? pp 128-155 (SPCK, London 1980)


To whom does Pope Francis confess? So, Popes sin too. (At least, I assume they do.)

Presumably, they confess their sin and do penance.  Who hears his confession?

Is it an office that rotates, or one individual?  And, does the Pope select that person, or is he selected for the Pope? And finally, clearly the confession would be protected by the seal of the confessional, but, is there a recorded instance of it being broken?  Surely the secrets would have been tempting to give out...

Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.

People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.

I'm not sure that confession can be conducted by telephone, so presumably one goes to see the other.


What is the meaning of peoples being divided up "according to the number of the gods" in Deuteronomy 32? Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NRSV), part of Moses' song, reads:

  When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Can someone tell me what this means?  God is one of many gods and he got Israel?  God divided the earth among his angels?  Or is he talking about idolatry?

The word, "'elohiym" in Hebrew can properly be seen as meaning, "God", "gods", "divine beings". So, you might say that the meaning was that he was keeping house of Jacob apart from the rest of the world and marking it as, "his" in the chosen sense of the word.

This reinforces the idea that being "holy", in Hebrew, really means being separate, set apart (see Strong's).


Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture? Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? gets this point across tremendously well.
But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place? If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations.
And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the many questions that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture).
If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture.
Why?

(*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.

Related: Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?

In Matthew 13, Jesus reveals that it is God's will that some people understand and others be confused:

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be
given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,
even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to
them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because
they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people
longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you
hear but did not hear it.

Jesus is here repeating sentiments found in Psalms 115 & 135 and in Isaiah 6.
Furthermore, Proverbs 2 tells us that wisdom only comes to people who make a long study of Scripture.

My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, 8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.
9 Then you will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path. 10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.

You have to prove you believe, that God's word matters to you and is precious before such wisdom is entrusted to you. Also, as Jesus said, the Kingdom of Heaven is one that grows like a mustard seed (Matthew 13 & 17). It does not start out full size. You begin with small understanding and if you cultivate it patiently, you end up with great understanding.
Thus the Church is filled with people at every level of understanding, and some charlatans with no understanding.
In the last three years, through an increased thirst for the reading of scripture, I have learned more than in the previous two decades combined. What that tells me is that even after thirty years of being a Christian, I have much to learn. If it is true for individuals like me, it is also true for denominations and other groupings of Christians. In my study of Ecclesiastes 3, I have found two interesting things. First, the 28 times (a time to be born , a time to die, etc) describe the phases we go through as we grow from infancy to adulthood, with the final time being peace. Second, these times also describe the history of Israel and the Church as God's people corporately grow from infancy to maturity. We are still not all the way there, but we will get there.