Is it more important that a worship service be contemplative or instructive, and how do we know? Per this link, there is a very definite effect of technology in worship.

The benefits of using, say, an iPad to reference Scripture and all of the additional source material (commentaries, interlinears, etc...) are fairly straightforward - the pastor can teach, and leave as an exercise to the "student," finding the resources, etc... needed to back up an presentation. Additionally, if the preacher references "Balaam" or uses a word like "eschatalogical hope," it is beneficial if people can look up that term.

On the other hand, if the point of a sermon and or a worship service is simply to bring about a contemplative mental state, then these distractions (e.g. the lights emanating from the device, the temptation to go to non-church resources) would most likely outweigh the benefits.

So, how do Christians even go about answering what the purpose of the worship service is, in order to decide for themselves if i-Paraphenalia is to be encouraged or discouraged?

I think the real question is what God wants out of worship.  In Amos 5:21-24, God clearly tells the Israelites that He hated their worship.  This was worship He had commanded that they were doing.  I think that the real issue here is doing what God wants in worship.

I believe that iDevices can be a help.  I am a very old fashioned and conservative (Reformed) Christian and I use my iPad as my Bible in worship.  However I use it basically the same way that I would use my Bible, to read along with the pastor as he is going through passages.  When the minister preaches it is a holy event.  Hebrews 10:14 states, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?"  The Greek does not say 'whom they have not heard about?' as some translations have it, but as the NKJV translates correctly, 'whom they have not heard?'  And Christ being heard here is directly related to the preaching of the Word by a preacher.  So when I am listening to a sermon I am listening for the Words of Christ.  I do not believe that every word a preacher says are Christ's words to His people (He would then be inconsistent) but that the Words of Christ do come through His ministers to His people.

So if I am sitting in church fiddling with my iPad and looking up some minor point (out of pride) to bust the ministers chops after the service, or if I am distracted by my device then I think that I have totally missed the point of why we are there.  We are in Church to give glory, worship and praise to our God, and to hear His very words from the minister.  I think this is the real issue.

So if you can use an iDevice in worship to give greater glory to God then do so, if it is a distraction or point of pride, leave it at home.


How are people who were not approved by Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23) still able to expel demons? In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said about a future situation as follows:

  21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom
  of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in
  heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not
  prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your
  name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I
  never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
  (emphasis added)

These people in this situation who refer to Jesus as "Lord" apparently believed in both their exorcism and that they were doing his will (or, rather, his fathers will as he stated in verse 21).

But these are people who at least verbally put faith in Jesus but yet are not approved by God.

My question is, how are they able to drive out demons if they are not approved by God?

tl;dr

It is possible that they are not casting out the demons but that the demons participate by leaving on their own accord, in order to provide credence to the preacher.

Exorcism exists also in other religions such as some forms of buddhism (they call it bgegs-bloz-chog or za-dre kha sgyur depending on the ritual) and among the nature religions of Africa. Sometimes the show to exercise the demon can be quite "extravagant". This is all for the audience because Satan's intention is to mislead, and confuse if necessary.

A longer explanation:

Demons are capable of other works as well that to us look miraculous, such as healing people.

Some of the miracles done by demons look like they are from God, such as in the case of the Simon mentioned in Acts 8:9-11. This passage says:

  9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the
  city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was
  someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him
  their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great
  Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a
  long time with his sorcery.

To the people in the city of Samaria the miracles made by Simon looked like they were from God.

Expulsion of demons and other miracles were also accomplished through "magic" as in the case of people in the ancient city of Ephesus. Acts 19:18-19 tells us that the residents of Ephesus had a large amount of books of that nature:

  18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and
  divulging their practices. 19 And a number of those who had practiced
  magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight
  of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty
  thousand pieces of silver.

An old book titled "Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles" by A. Barnes (published 1863) said on p.264 (left column on the left-side page here) about magic in Ephesus:

  The Ephesian letters...seem to have consisted of certain
  combinations of letters or words, which, by being pronounced with
  certain intonations of voice, were believed to be effectual in
  expelling diseases, or evil spirits; or which, by being written on
  parchment and worn, were supposed to operate as amulets, or charms,
  to guard from evil spirits, or from danger. Thus Plutarch (Sympos. 7)
  says, "the magicians compel those who are possessed with a demon to
  recite and pronounce the Ephesian letters, in a certain order, by
  themselves."

(screen shot of this segment is at the end of this posting)

There is no reason to doubt that "miracles" such as "expelling demons" could be done through these "Ephesian letters" as was stated by Plutarch. We already know from the case of Simon (referred to above) that people were misled thinking that his powers came from God, so apparently those abilities were real.

Demons would likely had wanted to give the impression that such incantations work at least some times, in order to hook people in believing in them.

This is all not particularly surprising in light of 2 Corinthians 11:14-15:

  14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
  15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as
  servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
  deserve.

The reason for this is that what matters to Satan is that we do not find the path to serve God the right way. Other than that he does not care who or what our God is; it could be money (Matthew 6:24) or our own gut (Philippians 3:19). The issue of whom we worship matters as can be seen in the 3 tests where he was trying to get Jesus to break God's laws (Matthew 4:1-10) in seemingly small ways (not through murder, adultery, or such things). The only test where Satan actually offered something to Jesus in return was the last one in which he offered to give Jesus all earth's kingdoms for an act of worship.

Here is part of the p.264 from the book "Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles" by A. Barnes:


Sin Nature and the Sarx, how can Jesus be sinless if all flesh is evil Someone asked about sin nature and the answer they were given was that the word Sarx was translated as sin nature? In Greek Sarx just means flesh. So if Jesus came in the Sarx and was sinless how is that possible. Especially to my brothers who are Calvinist, how could Jesus be born in the Sarx if the flesh is inherently evil to God?

It's a problem of translating sarx into English. This article discusses precisely what you are inquiring, arguing why sarx doesn’t ever mean “sinful nature”.
Another excellent resource is this book excerpt on "Sin in the theology of Paul" by Tom Holland, author of Romans: The Divine Marriage.  It contains a wonderful analysis of the meaning of sarx in the OT, Hellenism, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul to signify various concepts depending on context: covenant relationship, human frailty, mankind, physical body, etc.
Some paragraphs from the book excerpt:

...
To summarize the OT's teaching on "flesh", we can note that the term is morally neutral, speaking of man's creaturely existence and frailty. There is no lexicographical evidence to suggest that the term carried any negative moral connotation.
...
The translators of most English versions try to help their readers understand the term "flesh" by rendering it in ways they think appropriate. This seems reasonable, but, unfortunately, the translations often contradict the contexts in which the term is found. To translate flesh as "sinful nature" (as in the Romans passage under consideration) does not normally convey what Paul was writing but, instead, misrepresents him on a vitally important issue.
...

I highly recommend reading the whole 19 pages.


How do Protestants against the use of alcoholic wine explain 1 Timothy 3:8? 1 Timothy 3:8 (DRB) Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre

In case it's unclear why this is viewed as disproving notion that the Bible forbids the drinking of alcoholic wine:

By saying excess of wine is forbidden, he approves of moderate consumption: but this makes no sense with what amounts to grace juice with no alcoholic content. If excess causes drunkenness, then the wine spoken of is alcoholic.
προσεχοντας may be justly translated in this context 'addicted' or 'wont [to drink].'

Question

How do Protestants against the use of alcoholic wine explain 1 Timothy 3:8?

Thanks in advance.

Good points. Not all of us subscribe to the view that all the people drank back in those days were pure grape juice. Sometime it was (a symbol of Jesus' blood), but sometimes it contained small amounts of alcohol. After all, the pasteurization process was not even invented then. Grape juice simply will start fermentation after a period of time, and without refrigeration, it was the only way to store longer periods. Right after the flood, Noah even became seriously drunk, and based on his character, it was probably not intentionally so.

Even during the middle ages, there was nutritional value in grape juice that poorer people would not otherwise had access to. Also, potable water was not always available, and wine and beer were sometimes the only means of getting access to water free of bacteria and disease.

However, none of these issues exist today, at least not in the developed world. And if we believe that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, why would we want in anyway to cloud our minds, and give Satan an advantage in any shape or form?

Jesus when he was dying on the cross was offered vinegar to numb his pain, but he denied it, because a sober mind is more precious than temporal relief.

The emphasis 1 Timothy 3 places on bishops to be "not given to wine" and deacons to be "not given to much wine" actually show instead that alcohol has a negative effect and should be avoided if possible.


If we want to know what the Bible says about an issue, what methods can help us to find all the relevant scriptures? If we want to know what the Bible says about an issue, what methods can help us to find all the relevant scriptures? Particularly if someone is looking for a "clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture" (source). A sola scriptura perspective is sought.

The following tools are good for determining what the bible says about a matter.  Take, for example, this question about pets going to heaven.  If you wanted to know the answer, you should consult:
1. A Concordance
The first tool that just about any pastor is going to use to answer a question such as this is a concordance. A concordance is nothing more than an index of words in Scripture, arranged in dictionary form.  The best concordance, of course, is the one in our heads.  The next best one is one in a book.
The classic work here is Strong's Concordance, which originally indexed the KJV bible. Other editions look at the Greek and Hebrew words underneath, or use other tricks to better index the words. Using google, by the way, is another easy way to find verses you sort of know, but don't know where they are.
Searching for 'pets' you will find nothing.  Searching for 'dogs,' you will find that it is usually an insult to a person, not anything about the animal. (Clearly, the writers misguided cat-o-philes, I suppose. ) Regardless, the point is that if you look up any of the words you might think are useful, you just won't find anything.
One word of warning: It is tempting to think a concordance can answer everything. It can't. And, references always need to be read in context.  But, it is a good place to start.
2. A Topical Dictionary of the Bible
Sometimes, a word might not appear in Scripture, but an idea does.  The word 'Trinity' for example, appears nowhere in Scripture - BUT the idea certainly permeates the whole.  For concepts, a topical dictionary like Nave's or one of these are useful.
In these dictionaries, key words will be explored, and centuries of Christian knowledge will be summarized, as a useful starting point for where you are heading.  Again, you need to read what they write in context, but it will show you where to focus your study.
Nave's lists Pestilence (hey some people keep spiders as pets!), Peter, and Pethiah - so, yeah, maybe not.
3. A Systematic Theology
Finally, for larger topics, one should consult a systematic theology.  Several (if not most!) theologians will write books that seek to put a propositional order to everything in Scripture.  Typically, this means they will start with questions like "The Nature of God," "The Nature of Man," "The Nature of the Bible," etc...  If you know what transubstation or predestination ante praevisa merita is, you jump straight there and learn a lot - but more likely, you need to be exposed to the terms and directed as to why these things are important.  That's what a systematic theology would do for you.
In this case, looking at the nature of the soul, the curse of the law, and the need for redemption only when there is transgression, one could begin to formulate questions around whether or not animals have souls, whether or not the "image of God" is a necessity for heaven, and the like.  But that takes work!
And, that ultimately, is where all of the tools need to be placed in perspective. Each of these tools is a map to a microscope.  If you don't have an overall picture, these tools won't provide a lot of light. But, with regular reading, the overall map takes shape and you will be able to find these answers.


How did Thomas More manage to save his family? I watched A Man for All Seasons a few years ago and I know that somehow St. Thomas More found a loophole that his family could remain Catholic and Faithful and in England while he had had no choice but to be beheaded to remain faithful.

What was the precise argument that he used to justify his departure from this life while his family still lived in hopes that they could remain landed and Catholic?

According to Sir Thomas More: Biography, Facts and Information and according to
The last letter of Sir Thomas More, 1535 the Act of Succession was that which began the events leading to More's execution.

  It was the Act of Succession, passed the following month, that sealed his fate. It stated that all who were called upon must take an oath acknowledging Anne as Henry’s wife and their future children as legitimate heirs to the throne. This More was fully prepared to do. [Facts and Information.]

More was prepared to suffer, as a subject, the demands of Royalty. But some believe that the words added to the Act, regarding 'prince or potentate' were added specifically to entrap More :

  But – and of course this clause was added simply to trap More – the Act also required a repudiation of “any foreign authority, prince or potentate.” More could recognize Anne as the crowned queen of England. But he could not recognize the king’s authority as head of the new church of England. And so he was imprisoned in the Tower of London on 17 April 1534. [Facts and Information]

More had made little comment to Henry when the King claimed his previous marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, to be 'incestuous' (and therefore should be annulled) a non-existent argument since the brother involved, Arthur, died in 1501, eight years before his widow married Henry in 1509.

Wherever Henry found scriptural backing for this argument is not clear. John the Baptist's rebuke to Herod Antipas regarding his brother Philip's wife is irrelevant since both men were alive at the time. There is far greater scriptural argument that, since the brief marriage of Catherine and Arthur was childless, Henry, the brother, should marry the widow and produce progeny.

But More was not prepared to attend the King's subsequent re-marriage to Anne Boleyn in 1533. And not prepared to swear the oath in allegiance which excluded any loyalty to a foreign, earthly, power.

Nor was More prepared to accept Henry as the 'Head' of the Church in England.

Thus, to answer the question, More felt obliged, it would seem, to resist Henry and Parliament and he was not permitted to merely be silent on his own position, privately.

The Act demanded an oath to be sworn.

But More's last letter reveals nothing about either his intentions, or his own personal view, regarding his family and their rights or their future in England (or anywhere else).

The Wikipedia entry on 'hanging drawing and quartering' explains that those being so executed for treason - as was Henry's former wife Catherine Howard, although, being a woman, she was only beheaded - would, as she did, make a submissive confession on the scaffold, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their surviving relatives, who could well suffer the same fate if the Monarch was displeased with how matters were going with the purging of treasonable rebellion.

For whatever reason, political or personal, Henry commuted More's sentence 'hanging drawing and quartering'(the usual for treason) to a simple beheading.

Therefore it is unlikely that Sir Thomas More's intentions regarding his family's status beyond his decease would be documented. If he made provision of any kind, then he probably did so secretively and if he discovered any justification for them not being treated as he was, then it would have been unwise to publicize that information widely, at the time leading up to his own execution.


Without God is there only evil? The Bible says in a few places that God does only good things and is full of only goodness: James 1:13 - 1 John 1:5 - 1 Corinthians 14:33. I think we can Biblically support very well that God is not the origin of any evil.

However, what does the bible say about good and evil coming from mankind? Are people actually capable of good without God or would there be only evil in the world if God took a vacation?

I am looking for answers that examine the various passages of the Bible and do not give too much 'this is my interpretation' talk.

I have already considered Gen 6:5, but ultimately decided that the verse explicitly refers to those people at that time who all perished in the flood.

I am getting a lot of feed back that I need to define good and evil here so that it can be answered correctly. I disagree. Those are the Bible's words not mine. Even in this answer David Morton says I need to define them but later says "At that point [God leaving], 'good' simply disappears. It's not that we can or can't do good. It's that good ceases to be good, and begins being something else."

Is that not exactly the answer to this question? How we define good apparently does not matter to God. Isaiah 55:8-9

From a Christian perspective, without God there is nothing.  Scripture tells us that God continually sustains everything. Without God's sustaining power, all creation would cease.

  Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV)
  15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This tells us that without God, there is no evil, nor good. Without God, there is nothing at all.

Addressing whether man can do good without God:

Man is capable of doing good things, but only because we were created by God with the capacity to do so. He has "written the Law on our hearts", and given is a conscience.

Based on that, the answer to your question - can man do good without God - is "no". Even if God took a vacation, our ability to do good is still a result of Him creating us with the capacity to do so. Even if He took a vacation, any goodness in us would still be due to Him.

As a side note, people can be good without religion, but not without God, as noted in a comment on my answer here.


Is man's ability to reason properly a gift by the Holy Spirit? Is there any Christian denomination that views man's ability to reason properly as a gift by the Holy Spirit?

Most every church recognizes that every good thing is a gift of God, including our reason, but I do not think any denomination assigns the ability to properly reason as a unique ‘gift of the Holy Spirit.  However to reason properly about Christ by faith many churches think can't be done without the enablement of the Spirit. assume by ‘properly’ you mean those There are gifts of the Spirit that are given to the church that make use of proper reason such as the gift of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ (1 Cor. 12:8).  The main idea behind these gifts is that 'different' people have been given different ones.  Since all men have reason and by faith can reason properly, it can’t be then a special gift. Pure ability to reason is logically is a natural gift and it is likely, among those without faith, that none excels as high as the Devil, for his powers of reason and knowledge of the external form of religion no man could pretend.

 So gifts like Teaching, or having wisdom and knowledge naturally relate to our reason and one who has an ‘unusual ability’ by the working of the Spirit, might have a kind of unusual ability to reason about Christ, displaying unusual knowledge or wisdom concerning him and his work.  But as already mentioned these are not recognized as a ‘gift of the Spirit' by any denomination as far as I know.  A person may be said to have his reason ‘on fire’ and under an ‘anointing’ yet this is not with respect to his ability to reason directly.

In fact, what has often marked out spiritual gift is that despite the natural weaknesses of certain men, even without strong powers of reason, people animated by the Holy Spirit have been able to convincingly present the claims of the gospel with extraordinary gifts. In the case of the Apostles who were ‘fisherman’ and who subsequently turned the world over with the gospel, the power of God at work in those real 'unnatural gifts' that he gave them, was seen, in contrast to their power of reason, or natural learning.

I think these and other reasons has kept any church from attributing reason to a gift of the Spirit, just as good-looks, strength and wealth are also not proper gifts.


Why did Ezekiel say that God gave laws to the people that were not good? Ezekiel 20:23-25

  23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

Here we have God, speaking through Ezekiel, saying that he had given the people bad statutes (or laws in some translations) whereby they should not live (or by which they die, again depending on translation).

The only thing that I can figure is that Ezekiel, being from the priestly class, would have been more in favor of the stricter laws given Leviticus. He thought the laws given in Deuteronomy (like only having to sacrifice in the temple once a year, akin to Christians going to Church once a year) were leading the people to death. However, even given the interpretation, it is still a bit disturbing that we have God saying that he purposely gave the people bad laws that they could not live by. You get the picture of pious Jews, trying to live righteously, following the law, only they have been tricked by God himself.

What is going on here? I am not able to understand or interpret this scripture.

Ezekiel 20:25 is not referring to any laws which God had decreed, but the laws which the people had made on their own.  Since the people would not follow God's laws, he left them to their own laws.  For instance, the NLT says "I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life."

The laws he is referring to here are the ones from verse 18.

  Ezekiel 20:18 NIV
  18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the
  statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with
  their idols."


What are the major problems that Chalcedonians have with Miaphysite Christology? The Council of Chalcedon of 451 gave a clear definition of the Hypostatic Union, the doctrine that in the incarnation, the Son of God took on a full human nature, so that in this one person are united two natures, divine and human. Hypostasis refers to one of the three persons of God, so the Hypostatic Union means that the union between divine and human takes place in the person of God the Son.

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

The Chalcedonian Definition was written to refute several positions considered heretical: that Christ is not of the same nature as the Father (Arianism), that he does not have a full human nature (Apollinarism), that Christ was a fusion of divine and human (Eutyches), that the two natures of Christ were not joined in one person (Nestorianism).
This Chalcedonian theology was not accepted by all churches who attended the council, and to this day is rejected by the Oriental Orthodox churches. The Oriental Orthodox churches too say that they reject the four positions above, but rather than saying that Christ has two natures, they teach Miaphysitism, that

in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. (orthodoxwiki.org)

This sounds on the surface quite similar to the position of Eutyches, but the Oriental Orthodox are adamant that they too reject his teaching.
While there have been some moves towards declaring the dispute between Miaphysitism and Chalcedonian a difference purely of terminology and not of substance, support for this has been limited on both sides, with many strongly opposed to saying that the dispute has been resolved.
So for those Chalcedonian theologians who do reject that Miaphysitism is compatible with the Christology taught in the Chalcedonian Definition, what are the major problems they see with Miaphysitism?

My understanding is that Divine nature and human nature cannot 'merge' but are united in the Person of Christ. The union is in his Person, not in an attribute : 'nature'.
I assume that I would be referred to as a 'Chalcedonian'.
From my own point of view, therefore, as a Chalcedonian, the situation is not reconcilible. The concept of Divine nature and human nature being combined (merged) into one 'nature' is not logical and I can think of no scripture that would be useful for someone arguing that it is so.
I would call that the 'main problem' (see the OP) with attempting to bring the two parties together.


Is the LDS observance of the Sabbath on Sunday based on revelation? Is there modern revelation as to the day of the week where we should observe the Sabbath? I hear that in countries where saturday is the official day of rest, church meetings are held on saturday. So, is there some revelation stating the day of week we should observe the Sabbath, and this is an exception, or is it revealed that the exact day doesn't matter too much, as long as it's every 7th day?

So, in essence: Do we meet on sunday because everyone else does it, or is there actual doctrine regarding when we should meet?

According to fairmormon.org:

  Latter-day Saints do not base their worship practices on an analysis
  of early Christian history, or on the comments of scholars in Biblical
  commentaries, though these sources can confirm Church teachings.
  Rather, the Saints follow the guidance of a living prophet. However,
  it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint practice of observing the day
  of rest and worship on Sunday—like most of the Christian world—is
  consistent with the earliest Christian practice of which we have
  record.

See Brian's answer

  Interestingly, however, the most important aspect of Sabbath worship
  for the LDS seems to be the worship, and not the day on which it is
  held. Most LDS worship occurs on Sunday. General Authorities, who must
  often travel on conference assignments on Sunday, fast and receive the
  sacrament weekly on Thursdays. Church branches in Israel worship on
  Saturday. Branches in Muslim countries, such as Egypt, meet on Friday,
  the Muslim holy day. Wrote one account of the Church in Israel:

  Jerusalem is home to three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. None of the three shares the same day of worship. Islam
  recognizes Friday as a holy day, Judaism celebrates the Sabbath on
  Saturday, while Christianity generally adheres to a Sunday day of
  worship. These differences posed significant challenges in the lives
  of the Saints living in the Holy Land, and David Galbraith posed
  questions regarding this matter to President Lee during the Prophet's
  visit to Jerusalem [in September 1972].

  Following President Lee's visit, branch president David Galbraith wrote a letter to the First Presidency wherein he outlined four major
  concerns and formally recommended that the day of worship for
  Latter-day Saints in the Holy Land be changed. The four concerns were
  as follows: First, for the Jews, public transportation ceases on
  Saturday, stores and places of entertainment are closed, and in
  Jerusalem the streets are full of families going to and from their
  synagogues. Second, Sunday, on the other hand, is a normal working
  day. Those attending the universities have classes, many of the
  children have school, and, in fact, everyone except those in the
  diplomatic corps have other obligations on that day. Third, the
  members were scattered throughout the country, and the majority relied
  on public transportation. It would be impossible to hold late
  afternoon or evening services on Sunday. Fourth, the members of the
  Church had been holding their meetings on the Jewish Sabbath rather
  than Sunday for some time with at least the tacit approval of the
  mission.

  Two months after President Harold B. Lee's visit to the Holy Land, he authorized President David Galbraith to conduct worship services in
  Israel on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This authorization is dated
  November 20, 1972. This decision in Israel served as a precedent to
  include Friday observance as a day of worship in countries of
  primarily Islamic populations, such as Egypt and Jordan.

Note that this is not an official source, but I have no real reason to doubt that this event happened as reported.

To finish, it seems like there is no clear commandment in Doctrine and Covenants to hold the sunday as Sabbath, but we do hold the sunday as Sabbath because the prophets have taught us so - and it seems to be consistent with the NT, or in other words, that has been the prophets' understanding of the scriptures so far (see Brian's answer).


How does the mainstream Christian view of the physical body differ from that presented in The Gospel of Thomas? What is the value of the physical body in mainstream Christianity? Sometimes it seems to be very negative and to encourage one to concentrate primarily or even almost solely on the spiritual realm.

Other times looking after the body with Biblical references to it as a temple for the holy spirit and the like.

What is the mainstream Christian view of the physical body?

Specifically, I'd like to compare and contrast the understanding of the body as found in the Gospel of Thomas with Nicene Christianity. Are the two incompatible?

Mainstream Christianity views the body as the temple of Christ. The tool with which God uses to do good on the Earth He created.

1st Corinthians 6:18-20 my friend...

  18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

God told us that He lives within us, doing His works through the Holy Spirit which has come down upon us.

The Holy Spirit decending on His followers...

(Acts 2:2-4)

  Jesus sends the Holy Spirit in the form of fiery tongues on His Apostles and disciples.

Catholic Church in Nicene Christianity...

The Roman Catholic Church (a main part of Nicene Christianity) does not regard the body as inherently evil, but rather, prone to distractions and temptations. It is with the Spirit that one must cleanse his mind and try to do what Jesus would have done. Since He was without sin, the ultimate goal in our faith is to be examples of Our Savior.

This is not only the belief of the Catholic Church, but of nearly all Nicene Christianity denominations. It happens to be very clear in one of the oldest Christian churches, and is acted upon regularly in the Catholic Faith.

With little faith, the body is extremely harmful to the soul. Therefore, we as Catholics do Penance and examine our conscience for faults.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/prayer/examconscience.htm

In contrast to Gnosticism...

Gnosticism believes that all matter itself is evil of its own nature.

This shows that there is a great dualism between Gnosticism and Nicene Christianity.

  The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a
  Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be
  Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-gnosticism.html#ixzz3FkyexRXP

Quote from http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm :

  [Gnosticism believes] Duality of spirit and body: Spirit is of divine origin and good; the body is inherently earthly and evil. Gnostics were hostile to the physical world, to matter and the human body.

Here's an entry on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia discussing what Gnosticism is (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) One can see that the prevailing argument negatively labels it in relation to mainstream Christianity.

In contrast to the 'Gospel of Thomas'...

One person's interpretation of the 'Gospel of Thomas' from Misericordia University (http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/faq.htm):

  Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?

  It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the
  belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that
  they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon
  the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas
  is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag
  Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of
  this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a
  religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil
  archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil
  physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic. This differentiation is
  very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic
  (in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as
  they believe, Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third
  century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical,
  late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to
  Jesus of Nazareth.

While this quote may be heavily biased, it brings to light somewhat of a split within Gnosticism that is believed by many Gnostic people even though no documentation is given to support it. This separation of 'modern' Gnosticism is the distancing from heretical teachings that have been nearly universal in Gnostic beliefs (probably in order to gain acceptance).

To clear up the Catholic Church's perspective on the Gospel of Thomas, you might read these two questions 1 2 on http://www.catholic.com/

It can be seen that the Gospel of Thomas is not recognized as canonical scripture by Catholicism. Also, it is rather more apparent that the 'Gospel of Thomas' is a Gnostic book and that Gnostic books are heretical to mainstream Christianity.

To sum it up...

Nicene Christians believe that the body must be used in a way that is directed by, and pleasing to God Almighty. God sent His Son to redeem us from our faults, and sent His Holy Spirit to watch over us from within. Gnosticism is not Christianity and is entirely contrary to Nicene Christianity in this respect. We must only pray that He may give us the strength to ratify our actions.


Can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely? At any point, can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely so that the person may act beyond his control? I am trying to understand the Biblical view on this. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is a submissive spirit, but, I have heard people say such as "Holy Spirit was controlling me". Looking forward eagerly for the answers.

Whether or not it is technically possible, it would contradict the nature of God to do so.

To overwhelm a person dispenses with free will, and most Christians view God as granting mankind the ability to choose him freely.  As illustrated in Hosea

  “Therefore I am now going to allure her;
      I will lead her into the wilderness
      and speak tenderly to her. (Hosea 2:14)

and Isaiah

  “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
      I was found by those who did not seek me.
  To a nation that did not call on my name,
      I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’
  2 All day long I have held out my hands
      to an obstinate people,
  who walk in ways not good,
      pursuing their own imaginations —
  3 a people who continually provoke me
      to my very face,
  offering sacrifices in gardens
      and burning incense on altars of brick; (Isaiah 65:1-3)

God's nature is one of patience and long suffering towards his people.  A formulation that occurs throughout the old testament testifies to his longsuffering as well:

  I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity  (Jonah 4:2)

In short, the nature of God is to woo, not whelm.

It is much like the old saw "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"  In truth, God cannot, not because he lacks adequate strength, but rather because doing so would violate his own attributes. In the case of the rock, God is all-powerful. His omnipotence constrains him to be all-powerful.  In the case of not overriding free will, his love constrains his action. Because God is all-loving, his attributes constrain him from overwhelming those he loves.

The Holy Spirit definitely compels people to act in accordance with the will of God (e.g. Acts 20:22)

  "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.

But, that is a far cry from a demon possession like experience.


Who was first, men or angels? I know of the angel guarding over the entrance gate of the Eden preventing man from entering. Also, the devil, an angel, deceives the woman. It seems to me angels preceded man but I'm not so sure.

  "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26).

Was He talking to angels?
At the point of making man, had God made angels already?
Any other biblical references?

Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

"Morning stars" and "sons of God" appear to be references to angels. (One could debate this, of course.) If they sang and shouted when the Earth was created, and according to Genesis 1 the Earth was created before humans, then the angels must have been created before humans.

Satan tempted Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, and as you mention there's the reference to an angel standing guard at Eden. So if angels were created after humans, it was not long after. Not more than one generation, anyway.

Christians generally interpret the "let us ..." statements of Genesis 1 as the persons of the Godhead speaking to each other, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit conversing among themselves. There's no indication of angels participating in creation or of humans being created in the image of angels, but both Father and Son are described as creating, so this generally makes more sense than supposing that the "we" means God and angels. (I'm not sure how Jews interpret this.)


Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way? Now, once, I was fasting. I was destined to fast for three weeks. Now the church that I went to had Communion once every month, and it happened that my second last Sunday of fasting was my church's Communion.

Does taking the communion break my fast? If so, should I leave from taking the Communion? Is fasting a "good enough" reason?

Per @awe and @Jamess, there are really two sides of this.  It can go either way.

Are you breaking your fast?  Yes.  You truly are.  But you have to question: Why am I fasting?

If you are fasting in order to grow closer to God and find reliance only on him, then taking communion would not necessarily be bad.  Since communion is meant to draw us to God, then the two acts (fasting and communion) are moving towards the same purpose: moving us closer to God.

If you are fasting, however, in prayer over a specific thing (such as the salvation of a person or deliverance from a trial), then you should avoid the fast.  The purposes of the two acts (fasting and communion) are at odds.

Having said all of this, I believe this verse is appropriate to the subject:

1 cor. 10:31

  31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to
  the glory of God.

If you chose to break fast for communion, make sure you do it for God's glory.  If you chose to skip communion for the fast, make sure it's for God's glory.  If you follow that advice, you won't go wrong.


Do holy relics lose power over time? Do holy relics lose power over time? It seems as if holy relics account for fewer miracles than in times past. The handkerchiefs of Paul had incredible power to heal (Acts 19: 12). Today one seldom hear that anyone gets healed by a relic.

Anyone that knows can answer but I think the Catholics, etc are the experts and I am very interested in the use of relics in exorcisms. The question was prompted by the classification of relics so maybe an explanation of how that works as well.

Did they ever have power? Relics, like people, do not have power. The power comes from God. If you have faith that God can heal, He will reward your faith.

  And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it
  upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten,
  when he looketh upon it, shall live.

  And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came
  to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the
  serpent of brass, he lived.

  Numbers 21:8-9

In the middle of the desert, people began to doubt God and speak against Him and His servant Moses. And so, God retired His divine protection from them, giving open way for the beasts of the desert to attack. Then God gave Moses the command to make a serpent. Was there anything special about the handcrafted serpent? No. Was there any power in it? No. Why have them look at it then? Because those who believed (had faith) in God and in the words of His servant Moses looked, and were healed by God. Those who did not and looked for their own remedy died.

The power is not in the relic. The power is not even in a person. The power comes from God Himself.


Is there a study that has been done showing the transformational power of the Holy Spirit in people's lives? It's pretty clear that the Bible promises to change people's lives. It's also pretty clear that it did significantly change people's lives such as the apostles and others both in the the present day (e.g. Chuck Colson) and throughout history. My question is, has there ever been a study done to show the transformational power Christianity has in a person's life? It seems like a study such as that would provide significant evidence to support the claims of Christianity.

The simple answer to your question is yes, there are many such studies, and here is a good place to start looking for them:

The Nature of Spiritual Transformation - A Review of the Literature, Prepared byArthur J. Schwartz, Ed.D.


How do Catholics reconcile these verses about giving publicly and yet privately? I understand that the Bible encourages charity, however my question is in regards to how it proposes we ought to go about performing charity according to Catholic Christians.

  "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody."  - Romans 12:17 NIV

This verse would seem to suggest that one's charity should be well known to others. The context of this verse would suggest to me that others should know of our kindness so that they have a favorable view of the church as a whole.

  “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
  2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:1-4 NIV

This verse would suggest to me that we ought to give privately so that our motivations for charity aren't tainted by pride or selfishness.

How does the Catholic church reconcile these two views?

The question is based on a misreading of Romans 12:17. Paul is not exhorting one to do what is right and to do that in sight of everyone. Paul is saying that one should do what everyone deems right: "What is right in the eyes of everyone, be careful to do that."

Consequently, it's perfectly possible to do what is right and do it in secret. There is no contradiction.


Origin of the adage, ‘He went to be with the LORD.’? This is a popular saying in Christian circles at funerals or when a person has recently died. Is there a biblical basis for this phrase?

The Biblical basis for using the expression “to be with the Lord” comes from the Apostle Paul who had this to say about his desire to be united with the Lord after death:

  Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.  We live by faith, not by sight.  We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

While alive Paul is serving Christ, but he longs to be with Christ which can only happen after death:

  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.  If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labour for me.  Yet what shall I choose?  I do not know!  I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body (Philippians 1:21-24).

My NIV Study Bible comments that Philippians 1:23 clearly teaches that when believers die they are with Christ, apart from the body.  Being with Christ (who is the Lord) involves some kind of conscious presence and fellowship as confirmed by what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8.

The origin of this expression, “to be with the Lord” or “to be with Christ” dates back to approximately 55 A.D. when Paul wrote his second letter to the Christians in Corinth.


Which book of Scripture is most esteemed by the LDS church? I understand that the LDS church regards the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all as Scripture.

In practice, which of these works is most highly esteemed as being applicable and helpful to an individual's life?  Is one generally preferred over another?

Because Mormons believe in an open canon of scripture (i.e., that God continues to provide scripture through His living prophet), the words of the living prophet (or president of the church) are esteemed more valuable than ancient records. Every six months the leaders of the church formally address the church and their words in these general conferences are considered modern scripture. (see http://gc.lds.org/)

It's important to emphasize that this doesn't devalue the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price. Each is singly taught as the official Sunday School curriculum for a year on a four-year rotation (actually Old Testament; New Testament; Book of Mormon; Church History, incl. Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; see http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=eng). The words of the living prophet are just considered more timely.

The path to salvation will always be the same (the gospel of Jesus Christ), but present-day temptations like debt and drug use aren't explicitly warned about by Abraham or Noah or Moses because they weren't prevalent during their time. Because they are prevalent today, God speaks His warnings the same way He spoke His warnings in times past, through a living prophet who can and does explicitly condemn things like drug use and excessive consumer debt—modern temptations that can make it difficult to live the teachings of Jesus Christ.

See also: http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng


Does Catholicism consider body building to be a sin? I am an amateur body builder. I have heard that the Roman Catholic church categorizes this as a 'sin'. Is this in line with church beliefs?

The short answer is “no.”

First of all, the Church is not in the habit of listing all possible sinful behavior. The vast majority of possible behaviors are left to the prudent judgment of the faithful: only when certain things are particularly grave violations of the natural law does the Church speak out about them. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1954-1960, for an overview of the natural law.)

Hence, when we consider the morality of body building, it is sufficient to apply the principles of natural law, because in fact the Church has no official teaching about it.

It is fairly evident that, in and of itself, body building does not offend God, neighbor, or self in any way, and hence it is not sinful.

Of course, there are any number of excesses that can go along with body building: using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs (unless they are being used to treat some kind of disorder), for example, would be immoral (see CCC 2291), as would damaging one’s health for the sake of body building (see CCC 2289). Another possible pitfall is that body building can become an obsession: spending excessive amounts of time in what is essentially a recreational activity can be immoral. Moreover, body building can be the occasion for vanity: of seeking the approval of others in a disordered way.

However, as long as body building is viewed as an essentially recreational activity, or as legitimate means to train for sports, there is no problem with it.


Is Meister Eckhart's teaching condemned by the Roman Catholic Church? Meister Eckhart was a thirteenth-fourteenth century philosopher, theologian, and mystic who lived and worked in the Dominican Order.

In later life, he was accused of heresy and brought up before the local Franciscan-led Inquisition, and tried as a heretic by Pope John XXII. He seems to have died before his verdict was received.

What is the status now? Was he ever officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church or are his teachings recommended like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas or other saints?

John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary says this in the entry for "Eckhart":

  General name for the spiritual teaching of Meister Eckhart (1260-1327), the German Dominican mystic and of his followers. In 1329, Pope John XXII condemned twenty-eight of Eckhart's sentences as heretical or dangerous, e.g.: "We are totally transformed into God and changed into Him . . . Though a person commits a thousand mortal sins, if he is rightly disposed, he should not wish not to have committed them … A good man is the only begotten Son of God." Investigation of his doctrine has since indicated Eckhart's personal orthodoxy, while admitting indiscretion in language and the fact that his writings have been used by persons unfavorable to the Church, as Kant to defend agnostic idealism, Hegel to defend pantheism, and Rosenberg to defend Nazism.

See also the entry on him in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Eckhart's propositions that Pope John XXII condemned are:(source: Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma #501-529)

  Errors of Eckhart (The Son of God, etc.) *

  [Examined and condemned in the edict In agro dominico, Mar. 27,
  1329]

Condemned as heretical:

  (1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, * because He
  cannot make things before He is; therefore, as soon as God was, He
  immediately created the world.
  (2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity.
  (3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God,
  He also created the world.
  (4) Likewise in every work, even evil, evil I say, as of punishment and of sin, the glory of God is manifested and reflects
  equally.
  (5) Likewise he who blames anyone, in the blame itself by the sin of blaming praises God, and the more he blames and the more gravely he
  sins, the more he praises God.
  (6) Likewise anyone by blaspheming God Himself, praises God.
  (7) Also he seeking anything here or there seeks evil and badly be cause he seeks the denial of good and the denial of God, and he
  prays God to be denied to him.
  (8) In those men who do not seek after wealth, or honors, or utility, or interior devotion, or sanctity or reward, or the kingdom
  of heaven, but renounce all these things even that which is theirs,
  God is honored.
  (9) Recently I have considered whether I would wish to receive or to wish for anything from God; I wish to deliberate exceedingly
  well about this, because when I was receiving from God, then I was
  under Him or below Him, as a servant or slave, and He [was] as a
  master in giving, and thus we ought not to be in eternal life.
  (10) We are transformed entirely in God, and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into
  the body of Christ; so I am changed into Him because He Himself makes
  me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is
  true that there is no distinction there.
  (11) Whatever God the Father gave to His only begotten Son in human nature, all this He has given to me; here I except nothing,
  neither union, nor sanctity, but He has given all to me as to Himself.
  (12) Whatever Sacred Scripture says about Christ, all this also is verified with respect to every good and divine man.
  (13) Whatever is proper to divine nature, all this is proper to the just and divine man; because of this that man operates whatever
  God operates, and together with God he created heaven and earth, and
  he is the generator of the eternal Word, and God without such a man
  does not know how to do anything.
  (14) A good man ought so to conform his will to the divine will that he himself wishes whatever God wishes; because God wishes me to
  have sinned in some way, I would not wish that I had not committed
  sins, and this is true repentance.
  (15) If man had committed a thousand mortal sins, if such a man were rightly disposed, he ought not to wish that he had not committed
  them.

Condemned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy":

  (16) God properly does not prescribe an exterior act.
  (17) An exterior act is not properly good or divine, neither does God properly operate it or produce it.
  (18) We bring forth the fruit not of exterior actions which do not make us good, but of interior actions which the Father abiding in
  us does and operates.
  (19) God loves souls, not works outside.
  (20) A good man is the only begotten Son of God.
  (21) A noble man is that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity.
  (22) The Father begot me His son and the same Son. Whatever God does, this is one; because of this He Himself begot me His Son without
  any distinction.
  (23) God is one in all ways and according to every reason, so that in Himself He cannot find any multitude in intellect or outside
  intellect; for he who sees two, or sees a distinction, does not see
  God, for God is one beyond the above number, neither is He counted one
  [read: number I with anyone. It follows, therefore, that no
  distinction can exist or be understood in God Himself.
  (24) Every distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in person; it is proved that nature itself is one and this oneness, and
  any person is one and the oneness which is nature.
  (25) When it is said: "Simon, do you love me more than these?" [John 21:15 f.], the sense is: That is, more than those and indeed
  well but not perfectly. For in the first and the second and more and
  less there is both a degree and a rank; in oneness, however, there is
  no degree nor rank. Therefore, he who loves God more than his
  neighbor, (loves) indeed well but not yet perfectly.
  (26) All creatures are one pure nothing; I do not say that they are something ordinary or anything, but that they are one pure
  nothing.

  In addition there is an objection against the above said Eckhart,
  because he preached two other articles under these words:

Condemned as heretical:

  (1) Something is in the soul which is uncreated and incapable of creation; if the entire soul were such, it would be uncreated and
  incapable of creation, and this is the intellect.
  (2) That God is not good nor better nor best; so I speak badly whenever I call God good, as if I should call white black.

Pope John XXII's final statement:

  . . . We condemn and expressly disapprove the first fifteen articles and also the two last ones as "heretical," but the eleven
  others already mentioned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of
  heresy," and no less any books or works of this Eckhart containing the
  above mentioned articles or any one of them.


Who could have written the Pastoral Epistles? In my Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NSRV), a prologue states the Pastoral Epistles are psuedoepigraphical, not written by Paul. When comparing "The Letter of Romans or other letters attributed to Paul (according to scholars), 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy have a different voice and style than Romans or Philippians."

My questions are;

Does anyone have evidence for who might have written these epistles?
How should modern readers weigh Biblical texts that are in question?

I guess I'm saying Romans holds more weight for me than Timothy. Especially when some concepts seem inconsistent.

Sadly, we just don't know.

While I generally affirm the broad consensus that the pastorals are pseudonymous (I usually add the caveat that I think 2 Tim could be Pauline), it is worth noting that several good (but, generally more conservative) scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson do actually affirm Pauline authorship of the pastorals. And I suppose that's worth something.

However, it's important to remember that around the time that the canon was forming, there were many Christian texts floating about—many of them pseudonymous—which were read by Christians as scripture up to the 4th Century CE. Many scholars affirm that the Muratorian Fragment represents one of the earliest (if not the earliest) "canons" (though nowhere does it claim to be such) of the New Testament—perhaps from as early as the end of the 2nd century CE (though this is disputed). Notably, the list affirms the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, but observes that there were other writings 'forged' in Paul's name. If nothing else, this tells us that pseudonymous letters 'by Paul' were circulating among Christian communities during these early centuries. Whether the Pastorals were among them, only God knows.


Did Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope have any contact with one another? I'm interested to discover if there is any evidence that Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope had any direct or indirect contact before Marcion left the Church.

I suspect that they may have had indirect contact through writing because they were both influential and outspoken members of a relatively small educated Christian community around the same time – Marcion was 15 years older than Justin. Also, while Justin established himself in Rome, it is well known that Irenaeus of Gaul was heavily influenced by Justin's work and published his own writings only 15 years after Justin, so I suspect that Justin's work was widespread during his lifetime, perhaps early enough to be considered by Marcion.

These suspicions, however, are weakened by the fact that I do not know when Justin became widely known or when Marcion left the church. Is there any evidence that Marcion read any of Justin's works, or that the two communicated in any way, either directly or indirectly?

Joseph B. Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts, page 24) says that almost everything we know about Marcion comes from polemics written by heresiologists in the second to fourth centuries, particularly Irenaeus. Neither Marcion nor Justin Martyr has left any extant writings that could connect the two in any meaningful way.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, iv.6) mentions a book by Justin Martyr 'Against Marcion', but this fragment scarcely suggests contact - in fact the reference to 'Against Marcion' suggests estrangement. Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapters 26,58 are also polemics against Marcion. Tyson points out (ibid, page 29) that in the First Apology, written about 150 CE, Martyr expresses no knowledge of Marcion's activities in Rome nor about his excommunication from the church there, saying that what is striking is that Justin Martyr is surprised that Marcion is still teaching. All this points to Martyr's knowledge of Marcion to be by reputation, rather than personal contact.

The estimated range of dating for the works of Justin Martyr is 150-160 CE, which would mean they were written towards the end of Marcion's lifetime. Whether any of these reached Marcion and whether he chose to read them is unknown. It is reasonable to assume they had no personal contact, either directly or indirectly.


Christ in the context of Predestination I'm grappling with the idea of predestination at the moment. I feel it has several problems, or maybe I'm just not thinking things through.

However, one of the basic questions that arises for me is that if the saved and unsaved were predestined from eternity, what is the role of God's incarnation? What does it actually change? Predestination is usually defended on the idea that humans are so totally depraved that they could never merit salvation through their goodness? Isn't the point of Christ that we were formerly unable through our goodness (lack of it) to initiate a relation with God, so that Christ's role was to initiate this relation, to create this mediation? And once that is in effect, we have the choice to accept this relation or reject it? Isn't the point of Christianity precisely that since we cannot merit salvation through morality, we must always depend on Christ, in choosing Him?

This tenet of predestination seems to me to still being stuck with the Law and morality.

Isn't the point of Christ that we were formerly unable through our goodness (lack of it) to initiate a relation with God, so that Christ's role was to initiate this relation, to create this mediation? And once that is in effect, we have the choice to accept this relation or reject it? Isn't the point of Christianity precisely that since we cannot merit salvation through morality, we must always depend on Christ, in choosing Him?

Calvinists would agree with all of this. What predestination means for Calvinists is that even though we do choose to accept or reject God's offer of reconciliation, the ultimate and decisive choice is God's. Our wills are real, but God's will is decisive.
John Piper talks about it this way:

And so sovereignty is God's decisive self-reliance, self-determination. And there is no such thing as ultimate human self-determination. Humans have measures of self-determination, but they are not ultimate, because God ultimately governs and guides all of human willing and all of natural events. That's what I mean by the sovereignty of God. (Source)
I've never met a believer who, when you ask how they came to Christ, really wants to take credit for it. I've never talked to anybody who wants to say that they we the one who really provided the decisive initiative and the decisive work behind their salvation. Almost every believer, because of the work of God within them, wants to give God the credit for their salvation.
When you have two brothers listening to a sermon together, and one is awakened to see the spiritual beauty of Christ while the other isn't, can this awakening in the one be attributed to any innate wisdom or sensitivity to spiritual things? No! These things are not innate. The Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and that it is God who makes us alive together with Christ. God, in his sovereign mercy, is the one who quickens people and causes them to be born again. (Source)


Can Saints in Heaven Refuse to Pray for us? Specification : When we deliberatly ask them to pray for us.
I would like explanations which take into account the state of mortal sin as well as the scenarios in a state of grace.

The Mortal Sin Issue

I can see where the premise of this question comes from.  We always have free choice, even for those in heaven. And the first letter of John tells us to not pray for those who have committed mortal sin:

  I John 5:16-18

  If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Impetus for Praying

But according to Timothy, we are meant to pray for all people:

  1 Timothy 2:1-2

  I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

What is meant to be understood here is that we should pray for God to give the person the grace of repentance so that they can once again be in communion with us once again.

A look into the saints

With this impetus for constructive prayer in mind, the saints want to constantly pray and intercede for us.  Those in heaven are in an elevated state, away from the desired of the flesh.  And when it comes to the saints in particular, the merits they got on earth came from Jesus.  So they will intercede with the father because they have strong fraternal concern for our weaknesses, as that is how they attained their state. And that is their core motive in heaven:

  I want to spend my heaven doing good on earth – St. Therese of Lisieux: Her Last Conversations, Tr. John Clarke, O.C.D., Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1977, p. 102

Answer

All the saints want to do is to pray for us.  Yes they have free will, but they are in such a spiritual state that the only thing they ever want to chose is to pray for us.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses make the Old Testament forms of address to God ( "Jehovah" and "Father") more important than "Abba?" Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is the Father whose name is the Hebrew YHVH, the Tetragrammaton, which was the name the Apostles called on to be saved.
However, after calling on the name to be saved, the New Testament states that those who believe and accept what has been done to restore the relationship between God and man should acknowledge they are sons of God by calling the Father "Abba:"

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15) [ESV]

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)

The term "Abba" is from the Aramaic אַבָּא vocative form, originally a term of endearment, later used as a title and personal name; rarely used in reference to God which is transliterated into Greek as ἀββα. It was taken over by Greek speaking Christians as a liturgical formula.1
The use of "Abba" by the Greek speaking Christians is not surprising given Paul's instruction. Historically what is described with the name, is similar to animal sacrifice which those who rejected God's act of salvation believe is still necessary but the Apostles and all who believe understand are no longer required. In other words, where the Jewish people were told to call on the name of YHVH to be saved and to call on "the Father" (eg. in prayer) before the death and resurrection of Jesus, and still do, those who had been saved were to use "Abba."
Moreover, "Abba" is also how Jesus addressed His Father in the garden of Gethsemane:

And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)

How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain the requirement to use the name which was and still is associated with the Old Testament and its sacrificial system and not address God the Father in the way which acknowledges the current condition? In other words, since Paul says "Abba" is how someone who has been saved because the OT law has been fulfilled and is a child of God should address God the Father, how is instructing someone to use the Jewish name "Jehovah" consistent with the message of salvation Paul preached in the New Testament?

Fredrick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1

Jehovah's Witnesses do not ascribe different importance between the so-called Old and New Testaments. They view the Bible as one unified message. Certainly, the Law of the Hebrew Scriptures was brought to a finish by Jesus Christ, but there are also many timeless facts contained in the Hebrew scriptures about God, one of which is his name.

I am Jehovah. That is my name. — Isaiah 42:8

Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
— Exodus 3:15

May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
— Psalm 83:18

On the other hand, the Bible does not teach that "Father" is a personal name of God, but rather it is used as a title, just as your own fleshly father's personal name is not Father, though the word functions grammatically as a proper noun when you're addressing him with that title.
Christians can and should address God as their Father, as exemplified by Jesus, but nowhere does any scripture say that we should stop using God's personal name, Jehovah. The Bible teaches that God's name is the same for all eternity.

For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” — Romans 10:13


Since St. Irenaeus was not a Trinitarian was/is he damned? These are some of the statements made by St. Irenaeus that I believe put him at odds with the Creed of Athanasius: The Trinity Delusion (St. Irenaenus)

Here are the threats of the Creed: Athanasian Creed

If he was not damned, or even excommunicated for his failure to adhere to the Catholic God/Gospel, why not?

By its very nature, a dogma1 makes its deniers officially heretics (ipso facto at the least) only because of its dogmatic, unequivocal nature as taught unambiguously as the faith of the Church, by unanimity of the Fathers, or a General Council, or the Pope ex cathedra.2 Before something is made a dogma, it is simply be, for lack of a better word, unofficial official doctrine—the status quo of the Christian Church, to a more or less unanimous degree.
For example, before the Trintiy was dogmatized (against the hersey of Arianism), it was licit to have differing views on the precise nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, as no teaching in any official, universal capacity was as yet made so as to be denied obstinately (and thus make heretics of its deniers). But you couldn't deny that the Son was God in general without being clearly having excised yourself by apostasy from the faith, the heart of which is the incarnation of God—Immanuel.
Paul didn't go around teaching that Jesus was homoousios with the Father in the city of Jerusalem, because no one had to be taught this in order for them to accept the doctrine of the divine Son of God—not because it wasn't true: an Arius would have to come along in order for such to be later insisted upon as a necessity.
Dogmas don't work retroactively. You can't bind someone pre-Nicaea to a precise Nicene understanding of the Trinity as though they had this precise understanding available to them. Cf. John 15:22.
So no, Irenaeus, and any Pre-Nicene Father was not a heretic as incurring guilt or excommunication, but of course they could have held that opinion which is objectively heretical, which are different things.
But even according to the Pre-Nicene leniency described above, Irenaeus didn't reject the divinity of Christ (e.g.) anyway.
E.g.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of *the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all..."

Critics of the Trinity will conflate the identification of the Father as the only true God with that the Son or Holy Spirit are therefore obviously excluded from being God (since there is only one), but this ignores that a Trinitarian a) must accept that the Father is the only true God, since Scripture states it, and more importantly to the fallaciousness of this objection 2) believe the Son and the Holy Ghost ontologically owe their origin and nature to the Father, the only true God—this is what makes them God. The Trinity is in fact a lot closer to Modalism than anything else, since the distinction of the Persons is one that is not of nature, meaning all three Persons are equally eternal and equally have proper to them the ineffable, unique, and only divine nature: the onotological order of 'Father,' 'Son,' and 'Holy Ghost' are only ones of opposition of relation, not of order of coming into being—as soon as there is a Divine Nature, it is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the Divine Nature. The Son is the Divine Nature. The Holy Ghost is the Divine Nature. They are ineffably distinct in this way, but not as to their Nature—to be יהוה. They are the same God, but not the same person.
This is why the Trinitarin Creed doesn't say 'We believe in one God, the Father, and one God, the Son, and one God, etc.' But "We believe in one God, the Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible. .... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... etc.' only later to declare the divinity that flows from this Sonship of necessity and by its very nature.
This is perhaps synonymous with the objection that 'the Son is not God, He is the Son of God.' But this is a strawman of the Trinity if used as an objection thereto. This is because the Son is only called God because He shares one and the exact same nature with the Father, not because He is the Father (is 'God' in that Unitarian sense). That is 'Son of God' and 'God' are synonymous precisely because the Son is God by virtue of His nature being that of the Father, not because 'the Father' and 'the Son' refer to the same person. They do not: the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost refer to the same God. Any time when the Father is called 'the only true God' it speaks of the fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are ontologically distinct from this their [ontological] Origin, which can as being such be spoken of as 'the only' of its kind.

1 As used as a technical term, the word dogma means a doctrine declared by the Church in such a capacity as to bind all believers to its acceptance (usually/almost without exception in contradistinction to heretical versions of the doctrine, or its denial). It doesn't mean that before it enoyed this necessity of belief it was not true, or not believed.
2 The objective infalliblity of the doctrine in such instances simply means that since Christ promised His Church will not be overcome by the gates of Hell, not overthrowing of the faith will happen—which would have happened if a doctrine was taught in these respective capacities by necessity (e.g. the Pope binding the Church to a specific understanding of Scripture/doctrine would require all to believe it, hence it must, if Christ's Church really never will fail absolutely, be true and dogmatically so).


What do non-trinitarians mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God"? On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said:

  Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. –  fredsbend yesterday

If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?

I've come across a few different meanings. Here are three examples:

Adoptionism: Jesus was born just a man, but was adopted as God's own Son. There are a few reasons that are given for this (simply from God's grace; Jesus was the supreme religious expert for two examples). Those who defend this position often point to Jesus's baptism as the moment that this adoption took place.
Arianism: Jesus is from a divine substance like the Father, but of a different divine substance than the father. Obviously, the parts of the Nicene creed came from this, declaring that Jesus was begotten before all ages.
Unitarianism: Jesus is a religious exemplar, and we should aspire to have the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus.

There are all manner of permutations of these ideas, as can be seen in the article on Wikipedia about Christological heresies.


Are there any biblical examples of Early Church disciples praying to deceased saints in order to request their intercessory prayer? Certain Christian denominations, notably Catholicism and Orthodoxy, hold the belief that living Christians can pray to deceased saints in order to request their supportive intercessory prayer. Is there any evidence in the New Testament that this was a common practice among Early Church disciples? Can we find examples of this practice in the book of Acts, or any other New Testament book for that matter?
If we can't find such Early Church examples, are there any instances of this practice in the whole Bible at all?

Is there any biblical evidence that [asking dead saints for intercession] was a common practice in the early church?

The New Testament contains neither any example of nor any reference to this practice.  Even prayers to Jesus didn't start until after the risen Jesus had revealed himself to his disciples, so those praying to him did not believe him to be dead.
Generally speaking, one cannot prove a negative, but in this case you can read the entire NT to verify.  Or you can accept Martin Luther's comments about the practice, in the Smalcald Articles:

The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist
conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of
Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example
[or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing,
as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in
Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we
are not in need of calling upon the saints].

(emphasis added, but square brackets are from the original).
Luther continues a bit more from there, and it's worth the read, but the bit quoted above is the part that responds directly to the question at hand.
I don't think any conscientious Christian will dispute Luther's claim that "Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture," but some will, I am sure, vigorously dispute his scathing criticism of the practice.  This was among the key issues in the schism between the Catholic church and what we now call protestant churches.


Are there any scholars or doctrinal schools that address the conspicuous dearth of needy people in Jesus' sayings and stories? I'm doing a research project that has involved a lot of different types of survey of the Gospels. Having noticed a surprising number of rich people in Jesus' sayings, I  surveyed for verses with elements that pertain to socioeconomic status. That is, verses where Jesus uses examples or stories that involve having something (food, clothes, a home, a job, cash, storerooms, livestock, farms, storehouses, real estate, investment property, servants, slaves, hired hands, etc.) or not having anything (for example, being a beggar). I found such elements in about 28% of his 1300-ish speaking verses.

Rather glaringly, after a handful of comments on the needy (about 30 verses) and a handful of warnings to the rich (about 30 verses again), Jesus speaks some 300 verses of unrelated parables and examples full of detailed descriptions of people who have something--often very, very rich people. (Note that I allowed for narrative overlap among the four Gospels in arriving at these figures.) I tried googling around for explanations, but I can't find anyone who talks about the preponderance of haves as opposed to the precisely one have-not in his teachings. (And to clarify, I mean the only have-not who gets to be the protagonist. Jesus does tell a few stories about slaves, but he makes them the villains, in the end having them tortured for an unfathomably long time or summarily and brutally executed for their wickedness, so you can see why I didn't count them).

So here I am, naively asking: why does Jesus spend 60-ish verses promoting charity and warning the rich, and 300-ish verses on unrelated sayings and stories with detailed descriptions of people who have something--often the very rich? Or another way of asking the question: it seems to me that any of the points he makes in these 300 verses could be made with stories about beggars and seriously needy people, but he never uses them, preferring the rich instead.

Have any scholars, Church fathers, prominent theologians, or even obscure pundits noticed and commented on this?

Edit:
You guys, I am deeply sorry to have offended anyone. I did not realize this would be inflammatory. All I did was read the Gospels, and I was just asking a question that I thought would have an obvious answer. I am very sorry.

I am confused about the complaint that I have misused the word "rich". I must point out that no matter where you draw the line between rich and poor in Jesus' words, the needy are always the furthest away from it and on the wrong side. I just figured someone would have written a book about the stark contrast between the popular, modern conception of Jesus and the character actually presented in the Gospels.

The question as posed contains an implicit assumption that needs to be challenged -- or at least teased out into the open. It is this: that numerical represention of character types in Jesus' parables ought to reflect the proportion of attention Jesus gave to them outside the parables.

This is important for the the particular case of "wealthy vs. poor" characters in the parables, since parables "about" the wealthy typically warn against wealth, and so fall into line with what one sees elsewhere in the gospels concerning Jesus and poverty. In other words, it is not sufficient to do the counts/tabulations: one must take into account the intention of the parable itself. This point grows out of a relevant study by Stephen Wright, "Parables on Poverty and Riches", in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. by R.N. Longenecker (Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 217-239.

It should further be noted that with one solitary exception (as far as I know), the characters in Jesus parables do not appear as "individuals", but as representative types: this kind of farmer, that kind of despot, Joe Samaritan, etc. Again, this has signficance for OP's interests. W.R. Herzog makes this observation and draws out some of its significance in his Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Westminster/John Knox, 1994):

  To make sense of the parts, one must have some conception of the systematic whole. It does little good to recreate life in a peasant village unless one understands how the peasant village fit [sic] into the larger social, political, and economic scheme of things. ... These encounters [between peasants in the parables] are interpreted through "typificatory schemes"... Because the parables are full of typifications, their seemingly unique scenes and individual characters actually imply a social construction of reality in which people interact in typical ways. Even the characters found in the parables are not individuals but socially recognizable types who stand for larger social groups. (pp. 53-54)

The chapter that follows in Herzog's book explores and develops that wider social network.

In addition, assessing the balance of wealthy/poor characters in Jesus' parables should also take into account these two factors:

Of the thirty-seven parables in the gospels, I reckon about a third, maybe more, involve characters that are poor, maybe a slightly higher proportion if those "parables" that involve no human protagonists are excluded. So at least they're not absent. Here, too, as Herzog's observation suggests, recognition of characters embedded within the whole social scale is to be expected, not the isolation of any particular group. Thus we have both employers (wealthy) and day workers (poor) (Matthew 20:1-16), a rich man and a beggar (Luke 16:19-31 -- which is the case of the one "named" character in the parables), etc.
In many rural parts of the majority world today, subsistence farming is a way of life, much as it would have been for many of Jesus' listeners. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that there are degrees of destitution. Some of the figures in the parables are hard to classify in these gradations of poverty. Given this social setting, Jesus' hearers from a broad range along the poverty/wealth scale of the time would have been able to recognize themselves in his stories -- even though they themselves might not have been "wealthy" by any measure we would recognize.

This all fits into the wider biblical witness. A certain distrust of wealth on the one hand, and God's "option for the poor"1 on the other, runs through the Christian Bible -- Old and New Testaments alike. The challenging presence of the theme inspired the early monastic movement, with its embrace of "poverty, chastity, obedience", so it is no new idea for the Christian church.

For that broader context, an Old Testament perspective is provided by a recent book by David Baker, Tight Fists Or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Eerdmans, 2009). The study by Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (IVP, 1977; later edition Nelson, 2005) has had prolonged influence, and brings the story into the New Testament.2

But the literature on this is, in fact, vast, and runs pretty much throughout the two millennia of the church's existence.3

Notes

As it has come to be known in some circles, associated especially with liberation theology and Gustavo Gutiérrez, although used much more widely now.
Original sub-title: "A Biblical Study", but in the latest edition: "Moving from Affluence to Generosity".
See also the literature cited in the Q&A on poverty in Luke's gospel.


Is there more than one Joseph in the Bible? When reading my Bible, I've noticed Joesph's name listed in both the Old and New Testaments; is it the same person or is there more than one Joseph in the Bible?

There are 3 distinct (fairly) well-known Josephs in the Bible, firstly in the Old Testament (mainly):

Joseph the son of Jacob/Israel (aka The Patriarch Joseph). This Joseph is actually referred to in a few select places in the New Testament: John 4:5; Acts 7:9-18; Hebrews 11:21-22 & Revelation 7:8.

However, it's more likely that a Joseph in the New Testament would be one of:

Joseph husband of Mary and surrogate father of Jesus (aka St. Joseph).
Joseph of Arimathea in whose tomb Jesus was laid to rest.

There's also another 9 or 10 more obscure Josephs referred to in the Bible*, 4 more in the Old Testament*:

Father of Igal of the tribe of Issachar (cf. Numbers 13:7).
One of the "sons of Asaph" (cf. 1 Chronicles 25:2 & 9).
A descendant of Binnui, a contemporary of Ezra (cf. Ezra 10:38-42).
Head of the priestly family of Shekaniah, a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. Nehemiah 12:14).

And 5 or 6 more in the New Testament:

One of the (half-)brothers of Jesus (often translated as "Joses" - cf. Mark 6:3).
The son of "Mary" and brother of James (possibly/probably The Mary, if so, identical to Joseph number 8. - cf. Mark 15:40 & 47).
The son of Mattathais (and father of Jannai) appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (in which Joseph number 2. also appears - cf. Luke 3:24-25).
The son of Jonam (and father of Judah) also appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (cf. Luke 3:30).
One of the nominees to replace Judas as an apostle, aka Barsabbas aka Justus (cf. Acts 1:23).
A Levite from Cyprus aka Barnabas who probably deserves to be listed amongst the "well-known" Josephs except that he is almost always referred to as Barnabas instead (cf. Acts 4:36).

*That is in the Protestant Canon, there are another 3 in the Deuterocanonical books: Son of Oziel (great-grandfather of Judith - cf. Judith 8:1); Son of Zechariah (cf. 1 Maccabees 5); Brother of Judas Maccabeus (aka John - cf. 2 Maccabees 8:22).


Why does no one know what Jesus looks like? Jesus came to Earth or was born roughly 2000 years ago. At least 500 years earlier, there were civilizations in the Middle Eastern / Near Eastern region that could carve the faces of their kings and queens on stones. So, why does no one know what Jesus looks like?

Civilisations have to put a lot of effort into recording images. It's only rulers and powerful or politically-influential people who get their portraits painted or made into some other reasonably-permanent physical form.

That's true today: how many portraits are there of the British Queen, for example [on every coin and banknote and many many more] compared to Joe Bloggs? Even if Joe lives in a nice house, or is a Member of Parliament, far fewer. In this internet age, there are many images of media celebrities, but even they are mainly digitally stored and don't exist in a permanent form like a sculpture.

Jesus wasn't a ruler. He was an itinerant preacher. If there were any portraits of him they were likely to be on Wanted posters; even if his disciples had painted portraits they would have been on ephemeral materials.

The theological reason that there are no images is that what he looked like is not important. In fact it could be counterproductive. It's what Jesus did and what he said which are important, and they were certainly remembered and written down for posterity.

Jesus is the epitome of being "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) — because there is no contemporary image, we are free to imagine him as we will so that what he tells us is relevant to us and not limited to those in some far-off place who happen to look like him.