Where did the idea that Cherubs were baby Angels originate? I know of no Scriptural basis for Cherubs being baby Angels, or in fact that any Angels are infants. Additionally I find no reference to Cupid who is depicted as a infant with wings and bow and arrows anywhere in the Bible?
If anyone is aware of any such Scriptures please inform me.

You are correct that the Bible does not consider angels to look like babies with wings. Angels sometimes appear in human form, or in some inexplicable and terrifying guise. Also, Cupid/Eros is part of classical mythology - and he is more typically an adolescent rather than a baby, though both images are possible. Generic "flying baby" images may represent nature spirits of some kind. This iconography was known to Renaissance artists via the survival of classical statuary, and adapted into Christian art. Its popularity at this time is largely due to the influence of Donatello, although there are many examples prior to him (Inventing the Renaissance Putto, Charles Dempsey, UNC Press 2001).

Properly speaking, the flying baby is a putto (plural putti). There are variants, like panisci who are the compatriots of the god Pan; spiritelli who are general nature spirits or fairies; and so on. They all generally play a supporting role, doing things like holding up garlands of flowers, playing miniature musical instruments, carrying important people on clouds, or just flitting around the edge of a painting; though there are also works where they are the subject. Important variants include the flying baby head (maybe with six wings, maybe with just two), and the cloudy/ghostly/translucent putto.

Here are a couple of examples of these. My first example is Madonna and Child with Seraphim and Cherubim by Andrea Mantegna, c. 1460. You can see that the background of the painting is entirely full of winged baby heads. They function here like an aureole (a sort of whole-body halo that surrounds particularly holy people); instead of abstract glowing rays, we have a mass of angels. Another incredibly famous example is the Sistine Madonna of Raphael, 1512. In an enlarged version of the image, it can be seen that the cloudy background is actually composed of angelic faces. The two putti at the bottom are more "conventional", and probably immediately recognizable. The background angels are part of the heavenly vision - transcendent and immaterial - while the foreground pair are a playful bridge between the painting-world and the exterior world. So in these examples, we see a spectrum of uses of the image, from alien to friendly.

Theologically - if there is any real theological justification behind artistic appropriation of classical myth - the portrayal of angels as children emphasizes their benevolence and innocence (ie, lack of sin). Simply put, they are meant to look cute. On the other hand, the flying heads are quite un-cute to my eyes: the adorable baby head is in an odd context, creating a striking dissonance which is suggestive of the sheer incomprehensibility of the Biblical angel, even if it's not a literal depiction. I'm thinking of the Ezekiel/Revelation kind of thing, which actually are cherubim, כְּרוּבִים. We can probably point to Donatello for the habit of showing angels as winged children, though to be fair his putti aren't as schmalzy as some more recent examples.


If God is power beyond this reality, is there an infinite measurement of possibilities? Is there an infinite scale of beauty, goodness, joy and love that is God's power? Or do these have a fixed 'highest capacity' that God has/IS?

Put it this way, nothing is 'wetter' than water...that is 'wetness'at its highest value but milk choclate has sweeter alternatives.

The classical definition of this would suggest that the difference between God's beauty, goodness, joy, etc., is not merely in quantity or degree but in kind. That is to say, God's goodness is a different kind of goodness to that enjoyed by humans.

This is a common theme throughout patristic and Western scholastic thought, but perhaps the most influential theologian is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Denys to his friends). He talked about these attributes in his work On the Divine Names with the word "hyper" attached to them. "Hyper" means "over" in Greek, so God's goodness is hyper-goodness, "over-goodness" or "beyond-goodness". God is not good in the way that we know goodness to be, but in a way that is above and beyond it. Moreover, it is also a kind of pre-goodness, that is to say that God's goodness is in some way causative of the goodness that we know.

There's a decent introductory summary to these ideas in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A similar (and indeed indirectly derived) way of thinking is that of Thomas Aquinas, whose theology remains enormously influential in the Roman Catholic Church. According to Thomas, when we speak about God we speak in terms of analogy. That is to say, when we say "God is good", we mean it in an analogical sense. It does not mean exactly the same thing, and it doesn't mean something entirely different. There is a relation, but the word is not simply transferrable from the creature to the creation. Again, there are ideas of causality inherent to this.

This is unfolded in question 13 of the first part of the Summa Theologica.

So, again, the classical answer to your question would be that the kind of goodness/sweetness/beauty attributable to  God is to some degree a different kind of goodness/sweetness/beauty to that which we comprehend in our mortal embodied lives.


What languages did Jesus speak? As a young believer I was quickly turned on to the idea of learning some things about the "original languages" of the Bible.  After all, how could you understand John 21:15-17 without understanding the difference between "agape" love and "phileo" love?  Jesus was using specific words for a specific reason, right?  That's pretty basic sermon stock right there.
Shortly after my conversion I was talking with a Mormon friend of mine, and suggesting that we need to look at the Greek in certain cases to understand exactly what was meant by certain phrases in Scripture.  He looked at me with a strange look and asked why I thought the original language was Greek, since Jesus spoke Latin (or Aramaic... or something like that.)  This was news to me!
To be honest, it is a bit hard for me to accept that the Hebrews wouldn't have spoken Hebrew... given that their entire culture was built around Hebrew Scriptures.
Anyway, can someone sort all of this out for me?  Did Jesus speak Latin? ... or Greek? ... or Hebrew? ... or something else?
Also, please explain how we know what languages He spoke.

At the time of Jesus, and even for many centuries before, Aramaic was the vernacular or common everyday language. The Tanakh is mostly in Hebrew (in particular, the Torah) but there are a few Aramaic sections - notably, in Daniel. Hebrew was therefore the "high" language of religion but Aramaic was the "low" language of normal life. (Hellenized Jews would also have spoken Greek. The Roman occupiers, also being Hellenized, would have mostly used Greek, with a bit of Latin.)

In just the same way, Aramaic was the common language of the neo-Assyrian empire1, while they simultaneously maintained Akkadian as their "high" language. The neo-Babylonians2 followed the same pattern: people spoke Aramaic in the marketplace but used Akkadian, or even Sumerian, for  formal purposes. Koine (common) Greek is distinct from literary Greek, and vulgar Latin from classical Latin. You can also think of European scholars until  recently using Latin as a common written language, while speaking their own English/French/German/etc. in the street.

As far as the languages Jesus knew, we have the following evidence:

In the context of where Jesus grew up, he would undoubtedly have known Aramaic as the default language. Some well-known phrases in the gospels have Jesus explicitly speaking Aramaic, like Eli, eli, lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34); racha in the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Given that the majority of the people he interacted with would have spoken Aramaic as their first language, it's plausible that he himself spoke Aramaic most of the time.
Luke's gospel also demonstrates knowledge of Hebrew: Jesus reads from the Torah scroll (4:16-20) and even as a child could discuss religious matters with the teachers at the Temple, also probably in Hebrew (2:46-47). The Samaritan woman (John 4) would have spoken Hebrew rather than Aramaic.
There are several occasions when Jesus talks with Romans, including Pilate. These conversations would have taken place in Greek, the customary language of the eastern Empire, rather than Latin; Aramaic is possible instead if the Romans would stoop to it.

So a definite yes to Aramaic and Hebrew, with Aramaic being his first language, and a maybe-to-yes for Greek. Of course, this excludes any languages that he might have been able to use by miraculous means.

1. The Neo-Assyrian Empire had a run of about 300 years of dominance over the Near East, ending about 612BC with the fall of their capital, Nineveh (the place that Jonah really didn't want to go). Their hobbies included coming down like the wolf on the fold, making sculptures of winged bulls, and ruling over their neighbours. They gained considerable prestige from the conquest of Babylon (and failed to conquer Jerusalem) but...
2. ...the Neo-Babylonian Empire overthrew them. This empire didn't have much to do with the original Babylonians apart from being based in the same city; the leadership were all ex-Assyrian. That's why they tried to legitimize themselves by copious use of Sumerian, and giving themselves Babylonian-sounding names. The most famous of their kings is Nebuchadnezzar, who appears in the book of Daniel.


Why are most Christians reluctant to identify the Lazarus Jesus raised from the dead with Lazarus in the story of the rich man and Lazarus? I’m doing a talk in a few weeks on the story of ‘the Rich Man and Lazarus’ (Luke 16:19-31), and I find that it fits quite nicely with the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11.  In particular:

The name ‘Lazarus’ is used in both accounts without any disambiguation.  Usually when more than one person has the same name, we get a surname or other point of identification.  Eg. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Judas - not Iscariot etc.  Here it’s just ‘Lazarus’.  Nor is he just a bit player with one or two mentions.  Lazarus is named 4 times in Luke 16, and 11 times in John 11-12.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus offers no clue to why Lazarus goes to “Abraham’s bosom” other than that in his lifetime he ‘received bad things’.  Are we to understand that everyone who has a tough life goes to heaven?  If however we grant him being the Lazarus of John 11, then the answer is clear.  Lazarus is identified by his sisters in John 11:3 by “He whom you love is sick”.  So he went to heaven because he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him.
The rich man asks for Lazarus to be sent back to his brothers, and while Abraham is pessimistic about the prospects he doesn’t actually deny the request.  And then we find in John 11 that a man called Lazarus is indeed ‘sent back’.  And in John 12:10-11, Abraham’s assessment is confirmed – Lazarus’ resurrection results in the chief priests seeking to put him to death again because it’s causing people to believe in Jesus.

One thing that is difficult to reconcile is how Lazarus could be a beggar when a) he was buried in a tomb (John 11:38), and b) his sister Mary produced perfume worth a year’s wages to anoint Jesus (John 11:2; 12:5).  However there are three other accounts of this anointing (Matt 26:6-14; Mark 14:3-10; Luke 7:36-50), and in the Luke account the anointer is described as a ‘sinful woman’ (Luke 7:39) – presumably a prostitute.  This puts the family in a quite different light.  Far from being a well-to-do middle-class family, we see something much grittier.  Lazarus is a poor beggar, while his sister Mary makes big money as a prostitute - and apparently doesn’t share with her brother.  Yet Jesus met this family and loved them (John 11:5).
This all follows quite naturally, but I find that most commentary on these stories dismisses the possibility that it could be the same Lazarus.  So perhaps I’ve missed something important in this, or maybe there are implications that are too uncomfortable for us to accept.  Such as:

It upsets our idea of the Mary who sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-41).  The usual understanding of her is a pious virtuous woman, listening attentively because it’s the ‘right thing to do’.  This interpretation reveals her as a desperate sinner hearing words of grace from her Saviour.  Of course she should be excused from meal preparation this time - she has crucial business to do.
It upsets our idea of who Jesus should love.  John 11:5 has “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”  It’s a bit disturbing to think of them as a dysfunctional family.  We’d much rather see Jesus loving respectable folk.  But loving the unlovely is quite in character for Jesus, and complaining about it is quite in character for everyone else.  Eg. Matt 11:19; Luke 5:29-30; Luke 15:1-2.

I realise this view is unpopular, but there must be a reason for it.  Have I missed something important, or is this simply prejudice?
EDIT: I know there are strong opinions on this topic, but if you’re going to give an answer, please provide something based on Scripture rather than unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions.

I think taken together the Gospels do make us think about this possibility. God has inspired not just the texts of each Biblical book in isolation, but in relation to each other. Lazarus himself is interesting, being mentioned only in John, despite his resurrection being one of the most stunning of all of Jesus's miracles. But to go so far as to assert that the Lazarus of Jesus's story is the same as the real life Lazarus would I think be dangerous. I think this story should make us think of Jesus's friend Lazarus, but not read him into the story.

First, no one else in the Bible has their afterlife described in such detail. The afterlife is described so generally, and I think this is deliberate, God not wanting us to know enough to be distracted by it. If this is a true story then it gives us a lot of unique information about the afterlife, its seeming "physical" structure, and the role of Abraham in the place of the dead. With no other texts giving anywhere near as much detail, I think this passage would set us up more for unhelpful speculation than right understanding.

Second, it detracts from the real meaning of the story, which is a prophetic condemnation on the Jewish leaders after they refused to believe after Jesus was resurrected. In John the resurrection of Lazarus is given as a catalyst of the chief priests and Pharisees scheming to kill Jesus (John 11:46-53). But in the narrative of Luke, the point is about Jesus. Those in the know, those who've heard other stories, or who've read the Gospel of John, know that there are other resurrections which had similar results. But the main point is focused on Jesus. The chief priests and Pharisees sinned as they schemed after the resurrection of Lazarus, but they were condemned when they refused to believe after Jesus came back to life.

In short, I think this Luke 16:19-31 story reminds us of John 11, but we don't read John into Luke. Instead we read the Luke story with what happens later in the Luke-Acts narrative. Understanding it on its own terms takes precedence over harmonising between the Gospels.


What is the biblical basis for interpreting "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences? In the New Testament we find expressions such as being "born again", being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit". I can't pinpoint specific denominations, but in conversations with Christians I've noticed that some of them interpret them as having different meanings. For example, some claim that all Christians by definition are born again, but only a few are baptized in the Holy Spirit, whereas others think that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. Likewise, some claim that being baptized in the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit are interchangeable expressions, whereas others affirm that these expressions indicate completely different experiences. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about: 1, 2, 3, 4.
What is the biblical basis for interpreting the expressions "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences?

If you want a full list of every denomination's doctrinal and traditional interpretations of these terms, you're not going to get it.
But if all you want is a simple biblical explanation of the terms, then consider these example usages.
(Note that each succeeding one is accepted by fewer denominations.)
Human spirit:

Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
— Zechariah 12:1

But there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.
— Job 32:8

Humans are born already possessing a spiritual nature.
It is this spirit that makes us self-aware and distinguishes us from animals.
Filled with the holy spirit:

“And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
— Exo 31:3

When they came there to the hill, there was a group of prophets to meet him; then the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.
— 1Samuel 10:10

And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. — Acts 4:31

Sometimes people receive a boost, filling them with extra spirit.
(This would typically be to accomplish some task for God, or as a result of requesting help for some specific purpose.)

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him.
— 1Samuel 16:14

This guiding spirit may last a lifetime or be only temporary, and may come upon anyone, regardless of whether they have been baptized into Christ.
Baptized in the holy spirit:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. — Acts 2:38

To become a Christian, one must repent (change one's behaviour and attitude) and then be baptized.
During this ceremony, one will receive a special portion of God's holy spirit, as a gift, not as something that can be earned or deserved.
Born again:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” — John 3:6–8

Being "born again" in this case does not refer to the "I feel like a new man!" emotion that many people experience when they discover a new way of looking at things.
Jesus literally meant what he said; born again Christians will no longer be physical beings.
They will be able to move anywhere, freely, not being constrained by physical obstacles.

And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
— Colossians 1:18

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
— Romans 8:29

Following his Resurrection, Jesus became the firstborn from the dead of many spiritual beings, the literal sons of God.
Interpretation:
Our human spirits (what we think of as "ourselves") were combined at baptism with God's holy spirit, in a manner similar to physical conception.
That combined spirit not only guides us, it also grows and develops within us like a human fetus, destined to eventually be born as a child of God.

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
— 1Corinthians 15:52–53

When Christ returns, Christians, both dead and still alive, will lose their physical bodies and their embryonic spirits will be reborn as one of Jesus's siblings, no longer in the physical image of God, but now in the spiritual image of God.


What is the Meaning of Hebrews 2:11 - he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one Hebrews 2:11 (KJV)
  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

It is very confusing to read "he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one".
What is the meaning of this verse?

It means Jesus and Christians are on the same team.  It might make a little more sense in the NIV:

  Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

The rest of that section of Hebrews is talking about how Jesus is like us, in His humanity, which allows us to be part of the same "family."


How does Luke 11:5-13 fit as corollaries to the Lord's teachings on prayer [Luke 11:1-4]? I find Luke's account of the Lord's prayer model for His disciples revealing:

God's familial relationship with us as He is introduced to us as OUR FATHER who is to be hallowed...
and secondly
God's providence as we are asked to petition Him about His kingdom, our daily bread, forgiveness and temptation.

How then does the story of the midnight traveler and the father-son illustration in Luke 11:11-13 serve as corollaries expanding on the content of the Lord's prayer?

Jesus appended the illustrations of a midnight request from a friend, and a father never giving his child a bad thing when asked for a good thing, to encourage his disciples to ask God as Father who is also a friend.

However, there may be a problem grasping the application to ourselves if we simply assume that God is our heavenly Father. Bear in mind who Jesus was speaking to - his disciples, all of whom were Jewish people in covenant relationship with God, the Yahweh of the Old Covenant (or, Testament). They already knew God as their heavenly Father, and that he viewed them (and all Israel) as his covenant people, bearing his name. That entitled them to address God as 'Father'. But the pagans could not do that! You had to be in God's covenant to have that close relationship with him before you could call him 'Father' or 'Abba'. Romans 8:14-16 explains this by saying to Christians,

  "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
  God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but
  ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
  The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the
  children of God..."

It might be worth suggesting that only when that situation obtains with individual believers can they grasp the significance of what Jesus was saying about praying to God as "our Father". Then we will hallow (or, revere) God, and then we will be bold to persist in asking him for good, and correct things. We will know him to be our loving heavenly Father, and also our friend.

The story of the midnight traveler and the father-son illustration in Luke 11:11-13 are then clearly seen as the warp and the woof of the one cloth of praying to God as Father and as friend. There was no need for Jesus to mention what I have mentioned to his disciples as they already knew their standing before God as children of his covenant, but there might be a need to mention this today as not all who assume God to be their heavenly Father might yet be sons of God. They have to be brought into the New Covenant Jesus instituted the night before he died:

  "This cup is the new testament [or, covenant] in my blood, which is
  shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

I hope this is helpful in grasping the immense significance of those corollaries in boldly petitioning God in prayer, as Father.


Did Protestants get "Thine is the Kingdom etc..." from the Didache? So, I was writing an answer to a question a few minutes ago, and I was going to smugly tell all you Protestants that your "thine is the Kingdom" doxology is so non-Biblical, it's apocryphal.

Well, it is apocryphal, but if anything it's anachronistically apocryphal as no Protestant between the time of the Reformation,  whenever that was, and the time of Martin Van Buren's presidency, whenever that was, would have had access to said tidbit of apocryphal lore.

The problem is, it's SOOO nearly verbatim.

  ...for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Didache Chapter 8

as opposed to

  for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory, now and forever.

Catholic's have a similar doxology said during Mass, in English it's:

  ...the kingdom the power and the glory are Yours now and forever

and I always console myself when praying with Protestants that I'm not doing anything unTraditional in saying their doxology (any more than I am in saying trespasses instead of debts).

But, how did it come about, and what, if anything does the English version of the Protestant ending to the Lord's Prayer have to do with the Didache?

In the record of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, the additional phrase appears in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the Tyndale Bible, and, it appears, in the German Luther Bible of 1545.

I can't read German, except for "Amen", but it looks like it's there.

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine
  is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.  Matthew
  6:13 KJV

  And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne
  is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen.  Matthew
  6:13 Tyndale, 1525

  Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel.
  Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in
  Ewigkeit. Amen.  Matthew 6:13 German Luther Bible, 1545

These translations are at the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and Tyndale's even predates it a bit.

This phrase does represent a variant in the Greek Manuscripts, but the origin is in the Greek.

So, this doesn't come from the Didache, but from Matthew's Gospel.


What criteria are used to denote one commentary as "better" than another? What are the hallmarks of a good commentary? I was watching "Crossing the Threshold" with Fr. Mitch Pacwa last night and he was saying that when starting a bible study it is good for each member of the bible study to get their own commentaries.  He mentioned a good one being St. John Chrystostom. But I've never seen a whole lot in the book store coming from other Catholic sources.

This however, isn't a Catholic question specifically (although pointing me in the right direction is an instant +1). The main point is, what to look for in a bible commentary, especially when the New American Bible's footnotes just aren't quite cutting the mustard (not that they were intended to).

christianbook.com has a commentary page that lets you refine by "theological tradition", among other criteria. That is probably a good start, and will at least let you find commentaries written by Catholics.

Additionally, you could look a commentary up on bestcommentaries.com and read what reviewers have to say about it. That might not tell you whether the commentary is "safe" or not, but it should at least tell you what perspective the author has.


Why aren't I considered illegitimate? So, my dad is a baptized Catholic, but was raised Presbyterian. When he was in his twenties he married a woman in the Catholic Church who left him within a year (and got married to his best man... sad but true). There has never been effort to annul this union (it is moot now, she is dead).

Several years later he met an married my mom (another relationship which did not last). According to the Catholic Church this can't be a valid marriage because my dad's first wife was still alive. I was told that I was considered legitimate by the Church but shouldn't I be considered illegitimate?

So, apparently (or at least according to a deacon who is citing a canon lawyer), Canon law would say that my parent's marriage was putative and, as such, I can be considered a legitimate son.


How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He? Another question really got me to thinking about the Holy Spirit.  I thought it better to  open a new question rather to divert the focus of that thread.  So growing up, I also thought of the 1st Person of the Trinity as Father and the 2nd Person of the Trinity as Son but never really came away with the overwhelming feeling of Holy Spirit as He.  "It" would certainly be quite wrong, after all the Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Trinity.  What support is there for referring to the Holy Spirit as He?

There is never any indication in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is a "he". In Greek, gender for normal nouns like "spirit", "rock" or "bread" is a grammatical thing, not a sex thing. This is common in the romance languages as well, if you are familiar with those. The fact that it is neuter does not tell you that it is an "it" as we think in English. The word "day" is feminine, but there is nothing feminine about the daytime. "Death" is masculine, but both males and females die. "teknon", one of the Greek words for child, is neuter, etc... So the fact that the word "spirit" is neuter (and it is, despite what was said in one of the other answers) actually doesn't tell you anything.

People often appeal to things like John 14:16 and 16:7 to prove that the Holy Spirit is male, but this is inaccurate. The word "helper" is masculine grammatically (like the words above). This is why pronouns that refer to "helper" like the "auton" in 16:7 are masculine. To do otherwise would be to commit a grammatical foul.

If you wish to say that the Holy Spirit is a "he", realize that this is an English thing you are doing, not a Greek. Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit is a person, so speaking of him/her/it personally entirely makes sense and is appropriate, but personhood in the Godhead need not imply gender. So, theologically, feel free to call him a person. But by arguing about gender you are taking this question beyond what the writers of the New Testament apparently felt like discussing.

Edit 9/11/2015 in response to comments because the response is too long to put in the comments themselves

@bruisedreed I can see where that could be confusing. Let's change the verse to something non-controversial to see my point. In John 19:23, it refers to Jesus' tunic with the statement ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος..., translated by the ESV as "But the tunic was seamless". In the next verse it says μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν... "let us not tear it". Grammatically speaking, αὐτόν/"auton" in John 19:24 is just as masculine as the αὐτόν/"auton" in the case we're discussing. Yet there is no debate on the personhood of the cloak and people would question the sanity of the ESV translators if they translated that last bit "let us not tear him". Unless it's one of those cases where we used a gendered pronoun when it isn't actually necessary but is idiomatically okay (e.g., "My boat, she's a sinking!"), in English we would generally choose "it" if something doesn't have an obvious gender and/or agency. So here "it" is appropriate because it would be weird in English to call a cloak "him". But in Greek that's not the case. If someone said μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτό in reference to the cloak, he/she might be chastised for bad grammar because using the masculine is normal for the language in this case. John 16:7 is parallel. Greek has the pronoun as masculine because the noun it refers to is grammatically masculine. That in and of itself implies no gender or even agency. Jesus (or his translator into Greek) essentially had no more choice in the gender of the pronoun than whoever it was that said "let us not tear it (masculine pronoun)."

Now if παράκλητος/parakletos implies gender or agency, that's something else. That is meaningful. It clearly implies agency but it is debatable that it implies gender.

@warren you say "so saying it's merely an English thing to assign gender to persons of the Godhead is false". I agree. However, what I said was "need not imply gender", not "does not imply gender". Perhaps I should have said "doesn't necessarily imply gender".

@Susan That's really interesting. So here's the question I have about this. Idiomatically speaking, when referring to an agent and substantized, is this adjective/noun always masculine? If it is, then there isn't really a choice that can be made here (grammatically speaking) and the "choice" of gender isn't a choice at all and just what is expected in the language. If it isn't, then a masculine παράκλητος here might be useful for arguing gender, which could be useful for those concerned with giving the Spirit a gender. I was hoping the Philo reference in De opificio mundi would be helpful but I don't think so :( I don't know the answer to this but I think it's an interesting question. More usages of the word would be helpful. The form you mention clearly shows that there can be a feminine (in both grammatical and sex senses) παρακλήτρια. But is there enough data to prove that παράκλητος is a dude? Somebody get us all the references to the term in Greek literature and we'll figure it out :)


What are the predominant Christian views on whether Jesus had to specifically die by crucifixion? Could he have chosen another kind of death? As I understand it, Jesus was sentenced to die "under Pontius Pilate" and was crucified as punishment.  It seems to me that Jesus had no choice but to be crucified.  After all, if a criminal is  sentenced to death by the State today, they are forced to die and don't have a choice.  However, I believe Christianity teaches that Jesus chose to die for our sins.  So, I am trying to understand:

What are the current, predominant Christian views regarding whether Jesus had to die under Pontius Pilate specifically?

I'm specifically interested in what the beliefs are with regard to his having to die in this particular way, by the hands of the government of Roman Empire. How could he, as man, avoided the death once the sentence was handed down? Couldn't he have chosen to die another, less painful way, to "die for our sins?"

I am mostly familiar with the evangelical perspective, which I think is shared with mainstream Protestant denominations, since they all rely on Bible evidence alone (instead of relying on the writings of the Church Fathers or St. Thomas Aquinas).  The Catholic viewpoint may have been answered already (link provided by Peter Turner).

From sermons I heard and books I read about why Jesus had to suffer and die this way, the virtually unanimous reason I keep hearing is to fulfill Old Testament prophecies.  (Surprisingly the above Catholic answer didn't touch on OT prophecies at all.)  Furthermore, it is very obvious that the Gospel writers themselves refer to those prophecies when writing about the Passion of Jesus, as though they try to find as many of those as possible to give additional proof / authentication that Jesus was really the Messiah promised by God because he died & suffer that way, in addition to non-Passion identifying OT prophecies fulfilled by the life, the saying, and the ministry of Jesus.

The main prophecies about his suffering are in Isa 53, Ps 22, etc.:

Isa 53:3 ("like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised")
Isa 53:7 (led like a lamb to slaughter, did not open his mouth)
Ps 41:9 (betrayal by close friend who shared bread)
Zech 11:12 (Judas's 30 pieces of silver)
Ps 22:1-2 ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me...")
Ps 22:7-8 ("All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him...")
Mic 5:1 ("... with a rod they will strike the leader of Israel in the face")
Isa 50:6 ("I give my back to those who beat me .... I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face")

In addition, the OT verses closest to crucifixion are:

Ps 22:14-16 (NLT): (pierced hands and feet)

  My life is poured out like water,
      and all my bones are out of joint.
  My heart is like wax,
      melting within me.
  My strength has dried up like sunbaked clay.
      My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.
      You have laid me in the dust and left me for dead.
  My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs;
      an evil gang closes in on me.
      They have pierced my hands and feet.

Zec 12:10 (NLT) (pierced)

  “Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.

Ps 22:17-18 (NLT) (stare and gloat, dice for clothing)

  I can count all my bones.
      My enemies stare at me and gloat.
  They divide my garments among themselves
      and throw dice for my clothing

Isa 53:12 (NLT) (exposed himself to death, counted among the rebels i.e. the thiefs on either side, interceded for rebels see Luke 23:40-43)

  I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
      because he exposed himself to death.
  He was counted among the rebels.
      He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.

Deut 21:22-23 (NLT) (executed and hung from the tree, cursed, must not remain hanging overnight)

  “If someone has committed a crime worthy of death and is executed and hung on a tree,  the body must not remain hanging from the tree overnight. You must bury the body that same day, for anyone who is hung is cursed in the sight of God. In this way, you will prevent the defilement of the land the Lord your God is giving you as your special possession.

Ps 34:20 (NLT) (bones not broken)

  For the Lord protects the bones of the righteous;
      not one of them is broken!

Ex 12:46 (NLT) (Passover lamb's bones should not be broken)

  Each Passover lamb must be eaten in one house. Do not carry any of its meat outside, and do not break any of its bones.

By looking at those verses it is obvious that the manner of death Jesus had to undergo had to be crucifixion, if it had to be done during the Roman period.  If Jesus were to come today, the nation of Israel / Palestine wouldn't execute someone like that anymore.

For an extensive collection of OT verses that cover most of the above as well as other non-suffering related prophecies see a list of matching OT and NT verses here.

This is an even more extensive list covering all possible types of OT references: prophecies, typologies, shadows, allegories, illusions, also from Reformed / evangelical perspective.


What is the modern argument against obligatory head coverings? 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 gives these instructions about head coverings:

  4 Every man who prays or prophesies while having something on his head dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head dishonors her head, for she is one and the same with the one whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her hair be shorn off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaved, let her cover her head.

This instruction is disregarded by many modern denominations as being only culturally relevant. Why is this argument applied to this particular instruction whilst in the same denominations it is not applied to most other instructions in the New Testament? I presume there must be something making this instruction unique from the perspective of the theologians in those denominations. However, I have been unable to find out how they argue this.

Since the question does not specify a denomination, I am assuming that any denomination is OK.  I thus am basing my answers with one of the clearest doctrinal statements I could find.  However, it is pretty representative of most arguments that argue against obligatory head coverings, coming from a variety of theologies.

Here is a statement by the Reformed Presbytery In North America, which I believe is considered pretty conservative on most issues.  The argument is that the context of 1 Corinthians shows it is an example of Paul's larger argument of being culturally sensitive, not an instruction for all people in all cultures.  In the later part of chapter 10, Paul discusses meat offered to false idols.  He says that it would be unlawful for a Christian to eat such meat in the context, because that would constitute worshiping the idol.

  10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (NRSV)

Immediately after that statement, however, he says

  23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial.

(The quotes are added by NRSV because it is seen as something Corinithians were saying to justify their behavior.  Paul responds not be denying the statement, but by saying there are other considerations in play than just lawfulness.)  Paul goes on to make it clear that it is not the act of offering it to the idol that makes the meat unlawful, but the cultural context.  He goes on to say

  27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?

Thus he is saying 27) don't cause offense by asking if the meat had been offered to an idol, but also 28-29) if you know it is, don't eat it and appear a hypocrite, because (implied) this may inhibit the unbeliever from being Christian.

Next comes the head covering passage at the start of chapter 11 and then instructions about receiving the Lord's Supper.  He says that some member have been causing offense by making their higher social status known during the meal.  He advises these members to "eat at home" so as to not cause offense by displaying their cultural status.  Or as the linked document says:

  similar to Paul's concern for godly order, decorum, and the eschewing of offense in 1 Corinthians 10 (in regard to meat offered to idols), Paul instructs the Corinthians how they should order the circumstances that surround the celebration of the Lord's Supper. He teaches them that it is offensive and divisive to fail to wait for one another, and that if the reason one cannot wait is hunger, then it would be expedient to eat something at home before coming. Although, we may never see this particular offense arise in our circumstances, nevertheless the principle of unoffensive behavior in a public setting is applicable to many circumstances.

The argument continues that the next several chapters cover similar themes - the orderly use of spiritual gifts and how to conduct church service in an orderly fashion - which can be understood as respecting cultural norms.  Thus

  In keeping with this context, we believe that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was continuing in the same general line of argument. He addresses the headcovering practice which was culturally acceptable to the Corinthians, and seeks to teach them that they are not to be offensive, divisive or contentious by altering the customs of the land, when they come to worship. He is laying down the same principle as that taught both before and after the headcovering passage. In effect he is saying, do not alter the established order of this circumstance when you see that it will be offensive and destructive to the unity of the church.

Since it is no longer a cultural norm to where head coverings for women, the advice no longer applies.

To cross-reference, here is another argument by a believer coming from a completely different background.  He adds some points (such as the setting of Paul's instruction likely not being a church service) and explains the cultural background, but the basic argument is the same - the context of the passage shows it is not a specific instruction, but rather part of a general argument to respect cultural sensitivities.  I imagine this would be the route taken by most who would not adhere to a "headcoverings are required" doctrine.  This reasoning wouldn't apply to (most) other passages, because there is no surrounding context saying "X is lawful, but should be avoided anyway" in other NT writings.


Is it correct to say Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke as comprehensive one & John being the other) of Jesus Christ's lifetime? Since the Synoptic problem indicates that the Synoptic gospels form a comprehensive view that gives a holistic perspective, therefore, bible readers can Not use the argument that the 3 gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
I emphasize can Not because if we consider all the following Hypothesis and models associated with the Synoptic gospels then we have to take into account that:
-one of the gospels was a source for the other two gospels
Or
-two of the gospels was a source for one of the gospels
Or
-one of the gospels and some other Q source(s) were a the sources for the other 2 gospels
and so on and so forth..............
Two-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model]
Four-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model with M and L]
Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke
Proto-Matthew (and Proto-Luke)
Proto-Mark (MkH)
Markan Hypothesis (MkH)
Proto-Secret Mark
Koester Hypothesis
Deutero-Mark (dMk)
Three-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q-Matthew model]3SH
Farrer Hypothesis [Mark-Matthew model]
Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis [Matthew-Luke model]
Proto-Matthew
Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis [Matthew-Mark model]
Proto-Luke
Proto-Matthew (pMt)
Proto-Gospel Theory (UrG)
LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis
Multiple Proto-Gospel Theories
Mark-Luke model
Luke-Matthew model
Luke-Mark model
Luke-Q model
Therefore, Christian apologists can No longer use the argument that Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
However, would it still be correct to state that?
a)Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are a comprehensive view that correspond to 1 eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
b)and Gospel of John is the other eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
Therefore, would it be correct to say that the Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime?

Because the Synoptic Gospels contain significant overlapping content but are not identical, we probably need to drill down one layer further.
In one sense, the claim is true: we have two Gospels written by eyewitnesses, those of Matthew & John.
In a more complex sense, though, there is a great deal of eyewitness content on Mark & Luke that isn't in Matthew or John. If, for sake of argument, Luke interviewed Mary (the mother of Jesus), to obtain his information about Elizabeth, the Nativity, the Magnificat, etc--then this is eyewitness testimony preserved by Luke--and only Luke.
Each Gospel contains details of the resurrection narrative that aren't found in any other Gospel (though Mark has only a smidge of unique content). Even if we set aside Mark for the moment, only Matthew tells of the soldiers guarding the tomb, only Luke tells the details of the appearance on the road to Emmaus, only John has the appearance at the sea of Tiberius, and so on. So we do in fact have more than two eyewitness accounts for some of Jesus' ministry. For the resurrection we've got at least four sources (and many would say five by adding Paul) providing independent but corroboratory evidence.
I should acknowledge that I do not believe in Markan Priority or Q, but I've certainly read thoughtful arguments by many people who do. One way that I've seen multiple attestation in the Gospels counted is:

Mark
Q
Material unique to Matthew (M)
Material unique to Luke (L)
John

And to treat each of these as independent sources. If a particular event is separately attested in all 5 of those subdivisions of source-criticism, it would be considered to be attested by 5 separate sources, not just 2.
My own theory on the Synoptic Problem (similar but not identical to the Griesbach Hypothesis) would rewrite the above as follows:

Matthew
Lukan content not found in Matthew
Markan content not found in Matthew or Luke (just a handful of verses)
John

So we can still get more than double attestation for some events.

Appendix
My own theory on the Synoptic Problem is presented here
For those who are frustrated by my extremely abbreviated claim that Matthew & John were written by eyewitnesses, a much more exhaustive discussion is found in the video series I'm making here.


How did Cain kill Abel? Genesis 4:8

  Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

* [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain.

My question is how did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed.

I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.)

In the canon of scripture the answer is not stated, but in the book of Jasher it is. I suppose most would not consider it doctrine since it is not in the current Bible, but in the book of Jasher it states:

  And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. (Jasher 1:25)

This is the only reference I have found that may actually mean something besides just guessing at it.


What is the Biblical support for Purgatory? Exactly as the title asks; where do Catholics get their Scriptural support for the idea of Purgatory? To be more specific, how I think of Purgatory (which may be incorrect) is that it's a temporary place of suffering before one goes on to Heaven.

From what I understand, the idea behind Purgatory is that it is a place or state where sinful believers go before they are admitted to Heaven.  It is believed that it is possible for the living to pray for and atone for the sins of the dead so they may be admitted into Heaven.

This belief is mostly based on 2 Maccabees 39-46, which is a part of the Catholic bible.  (This book is considered apocrypha for many denominations.  See What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?)

(Italics were added by me in the following)

  2 Maccabees 12:39-46 (DRA)

  39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the
  bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen,
  in the sepulchres of their fathers.

  40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries
  of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that
  all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

  41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had
  discovered the things that were hidden.

  42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that
  the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most
  valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin,
  forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of
  the sins of those that were slain.

  43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to
  Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead,
  thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,

  44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise
  again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the
  dead,)

  45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with
  godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

  46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the
  dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


Is Aquinas' idea of 'Beatific Vision' widely accepted today? Thomas Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the human being's "final end" in which one attains to a perfect happiness. Aquinas reasons that one is perfectly happy only when all one's desires are perfectly satisfied, to the degree that happiness could not increase and could not be lost.

"Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek."STh I–II, q., 3, a. 8.

But this kind of perfect happiness cannot be found in any physical pleasure, any amount of worldly power, any degree of temporal fame or honor, or indeed in any finite reality. It can only be found in something that is infinite and perfect – and this is God. STh I–II, q. 2, a. 8.
And since God is not a material thing but is pure spirit, we are united to God by knowing and loving him. Consequently, the most perfect union with God is the most perfect human happiness and the goal of the whole of the human life. But we cannot attain to this happiness by our own natural powers; it is a gift that must be given to us by God, who strengthens us by the "light of glory" so that we can see him as he is, without any intermediary. (Thomas quotes Psalm 35:10 on this point:

"In your light we shall see light.")STh I, q. 12, a. 4.

Further, since every created image or likeness of God (including even the most perfect "ideas" or "images" of God we might generate in our minds) is necessarily finite, it would thus be infinitely less than God himself.STh I, q. 12, a. 2.
The only perfect and infinite good, therefore, is God himself, which is why Aquinas argues that our perfect happiness and final end can only be the direct union with God himself and not with any created image of him. This union comes about by a kind of "seeing" perfectly the divine essence itself, a gift given to our intellects when God joins them directly to himself without any intermediary. And since in seeing this perfect vision of what (and who) God is, we grasp also his perfect goodness, this act of "seeing" is at the same time a perfect act of loving God as the highest and infinite goodness"

Wikipedia 'Beatific Vision'.

Is this largely accepted in the 'present' or are there other popular philosophies of theology that combat this?

Relationship with God is generally understood as being the most important thing we can hope for in all the Christian circles I am familiar with (a wide variety of Protestant denominations and movements. Often a simplistic view of the Gospel focuses on the negative, avoiding condemnation. Even here, the most consistent view of being condemned is that it means "eternal separation" from God; implying that not being separated must be a great benefit.

Slightly more advanced views emphasize the benefits of relationship. Although Christ said we would suffer in this world, He assures us of God's continual presence -- primarily of the Holy Spirit during our Earthly life; presumably learning to relate to all aspects and the three persons of God in the hereafter.

Some emphasize the joys available during this life, others the benefits of Heaven. It seems that most of the time figurative speech is used, comparing our relationship with things we can understand from a worldly viewpoint.

Not a lot is said about our final state in the scripture, so the connection between relationship with Christ now and our permanent estate may not be as clear as one would like. In my own opinion, it is desirable to understand the "Beatific state" as the joy of relationship, available to us now to considerable degree, and our glorified state as a continuation with a deeper relationship far beyond the limits of what we can now understand. The idea of "blessedness", from the Hebrew word Shalom, is an attempt to express this.

I found the book, "God is the gospel" by john piper. Its subtitle is, "MEDITATIONS ON GOD’S LOVE AS THE GIFT OF H IMSELF". It is online at:
http://www.slideshare.net/FreeLeaks/god-is-the-gospel-by-john-piper-28686854

Piper's book is for inspirational reading, not theology. Neither Piper nor Aquinas use the term "relationship" consistently, which I see as the central point. Nevertheless I hope some short quotes will show the similarity between Aquinas' view and Piper's.

"God loves as no other being can or should love. No one else in the universe can or should love by giving us the gift of himself." (Piper, p. 165)

"If I would love you, I must do what Jesus did. I must live and die to give ou God. That’s what Jesus did. That’s what God does. God’s highest act of love is giving us himself to love."

"[The Gospel brings] us to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ as our supreme, all-satisfying, and everlasting treasure." (Piper, p. 167)

Piper quotes 1 Pet 3:18 as, "Christ . . . suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"

Piper refers to (Acts 26:17b-18; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6), saying we can see in the gospel “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (p. 168)

"[T]he best and highest and final good in the gospel ... is the glory, the worth, the beauty, the treasure of Christ himself who is true God and true man."

Piper refers to a number of hymns which reinforce the idea that God is seen as the source of the joys of Heaven.

"Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art;
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light."

The last verse relates this clearly to Heaven, but can add nothing to the expression of the joy of the relationship. The final line is, "Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all."

Other hymns quoted are "Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee", "Jesus, Thou Joy of Loving Hearts", and "Fairest Lord Jesus".


What is the Biblical basis for continuationism? Continuationism is the idea that extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (prophecy, tongues, healing) continue in the present day. This is contrasted with cessationism, which says that such gifts have ceased (at the closing of the canon, or the death of the last apostle, etc.). The charismatic movement is continuationist in its theology. What Bible verses and Biblical arguments support the doctrine of continuationism?

This question is the polar opposite of this one:
What is the basis for Cessationism?

This is from Why I Am a Continuationist by Sam Storms:

  New Testament evidence of miraculous gifts among Christians who are
  not apostles. In other words, numerous non-apostolic men and women,
  young and old, across the breadth of the Roman Empire consistently
  exercised these gifts of the Spirit (and Stephen and Philip ministered
  in the power of signs and wonders). Others aside from the apostles who
  exercised miraculous gifts include (1) the 70 who were commissioned in
  Luke 10:9, 19-20; (2) at least 108 people among the 120 who were
  gathered in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; (3) Stephen (Acts
  6-7); (4) Philip (Acts 8); (5) Ananias (Acts 9); (6) church members in
  Antioch (Acts 13); (7) anonymous converts in Ephesus (Acts 19:6); (8)
  women at Caesarea (Acts 21:8-9); (9) the unnamed brethren of Galatians
  3:5; (10) believers in Rome (Rom. 12:6-8); (11) believers in Corinth
  (1 Cor. 12-14); and (12) Christians in Thessalonica (1 Thess.
  5:19-20).

  We must also take note of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. Here Paul asserts
  that spiritual gifts will not "pass away" (vv. 8-10) until the coming
  of the "perfect." If the "perfect" is indeed the consummation of God's
  redemptive purposes as expressed in the new heaven and new earth
  following Christ's return, we can confidently expect him to continue
  blessing and empowering his church with the gifts until that time.

  ...

  A similar point is made in Ephesians 4:11-13. There Paul speaks of
  spiritual gifts (together with the office of apostle)—and in
  particular the gifts of prophecy, evangelism, pastor, and teacher—as
  building up of the church "until we all attain to the unity of the
  faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to
  the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (v. 13; italics
  mine). Since the latter most assuredly has not yet been attained by
  the church, we can confidently anticipate the presence and power of
  such gifts until that day arrives.


Why don't Mormons sing the second verse of, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"? We were singing Christmas Carols tonight and noticed that in the Mormon Hymn book, the following verse has been omitted from, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing":

  Christ, by highest heav'n adored: Christ, the everlasting
  Lord; Late in time behold him come, Offspring of the favored
  one. Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see; Hail, th'incarnate
  Deity: Pleased, as man, with men to dwell, Jesus, our
  Emmanuel!

Why don't Mormons sing this verse?

The complete text of the carol can be found here. It seems that of the five verses, only verse one and three are included in the (english) Hymnbook (linked by OP).

This specific verse seems of rather trinitarian thought, that may be a reason. Seeing that two other verses have also been omitted:

  Come, Desire of nations, come,
  Fix in us Thy humble home;
  Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
  Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
  Now display Thy saving pow’r,
  Ruined nature now restore;
  Now in mystic union join
  Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

  Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
  Stamp Thine image in its place:
  Second Adam from above,
  Reinstate us in Thy love.
  Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
  Thee, the Life, the inner man:
  Oh, to all Thyself impart,
  Formed in each believing heart.

I don't know where to look for an authoritative answer, but the people responsible for Hymn books probably just didn't feel comfortable with the omitted verses. "Mystic union" is not in the vocabulary of mormons, and "Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see" sounds too trinitarian, although it could be reinterpreted with a little effort. It's not so much that we couldn't sing these verses and reinterpret them with our doctrine, but it would not very comfortably.


Is there any connection between minimum age for marriage in Catholic Church and tradition about Mary's age at Annunciation? According to Canonic law, the minimum age for marryage to be valid for girls is fourteen (it can be and usually is higher for the marriage not to be illicit):

  Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age
  and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot
  enter into a valid marriage.

Since Mary gave birth to Jesus at similar age and is important enough to make an example of sort, I guess that tradition of her age at Annunciation may have played a role in forming of this law.

My question: is this role marginal, non-existent, or important? Are there any sources for it?

I do not think there is any connection in any Church document or scripture to the annunciation.

However, the sacraments have age requirements attached to them as a "rule of thumb."  A certain level of maturity and knowledge is required to receive a sacrament.  The Church could assign any age it deems necessary.

Even though the ages are 14 and 16 according to Canon Law, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Deacon or Priest in the developed world who would marry a couple this young.


What is the biblical basis for 'Holy laughter'? What is the biblical basis for Holy laughter? Here some examples.

Is there a  biblical basis for Holy laughter?
The short answer seems to be yes!
There seems to be a time for everything according to the Holy Book, at least Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 says so:

A Time for Everything
3 For everything there is a season,
a time for every activity under heaven.
2 A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant and a time to harvest.
3 A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4 A time to cry and a time to laugh.
A time to grieve and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a time to turn away.
6 A time to search and a time to quit searching.
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7 A time to tear and a time to mend.
A time to be quiet and a time to speak.
8 A time to love and a time to hate.
A time for war and a time for peace.

Here follows 14 Bible Verses about Joy in the Old Testament:

“A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.” — Proverbs 17:22

“Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” – Psaml 47:1

“God has a smile on His face.” — Psalm 42:5

“God, who sits in Heaven, laughs!” — Psalm 2:4

“He that is of a merry heart has a continual feast.” — Proverbs 15:15

“I commend mirth.” — Ecclesiastes 8:15

“I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them and give them gladness for sorrow.” — Jeremiah 31:13

“Let the shield exult and everything in it. Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy.” — Psalm 96:12

“Let your heart be merry.” — Judges 19:6

“Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break into joyous song and sing praises.” — Psalm 98:4

“The pastures of the wilderness overflow, the hills gird themselves wiht joy; The meadows clothe themselves with flocks, the valleys deck themselves with grain, they shout and sing together for joy.” — Psalm 65:12-13

“Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy; then it was said among the nations, the Lord has done great things for them.” — Psalm 126:2

“You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have taken off my sackcloth and clothed me with joy.” — Psalm 30:11

“You shall go out in joy, and be led back in peace; the mountains and hills before you shall burst into song, and the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” — Isaiah 55:12


Has any Christian (group) attempted to compile a list of personages, which are Biblically stated to be (eventually) in heaven? I recently asked myself, of which Biblical personages it is stated in the Bible, that they are or eventually will be in heaven. I presume, that I am not the first one to think about this question. So I am asking now:
Has any Christian (denomination) attempted to compile such a list?

For answers with lists, which are created by only one person, I want to emphasize, that this person should be a well known preacher or teacher. The question is not about arbitrary individuals.
This question asks about concrete Biblical personages not a "how to". Thus, answers of the form "All who ..." are not targeted, except if they point to people who "...".
The lists should have Biblical basis.

I did a bit of research before asking the question, which follows here. The persons are sorted in order of the respective Bible verses cited.
(All cites are from the English Standard Version (ESV).)

Enoch

Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Genesis 5:24 (ESV)

Elijah

And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Kings 2:11 (ESV)

David

But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
Jeremiah 30:9 (ESV)

Peter (Not 100% directly stated)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [...]
Matthew 16:18-19

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.
Matthew 22:32 (cf. Mark 12:26-27, Luke 20:37-38)

Moses and Elijah (Also not 100% directly stated)

And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory [...]
Luke 9:30-31 (cf. Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:4)

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.
Luke 13:28 (ESV)

Maybe Lazarus, if a real person (and again Abraham)

and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luke 16:23 (ESV)

Jesus and a criminal hanged next to Jesus

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Luke 23:43 (ESV)

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph (Son of Jacob), Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets

By faith Abel [...] Enoch [...] Noah [...] Abraham [...] Sarah [...] Abraham [...] Isaac [...] Jacob [...] Joseph [...] Moses [...] Rahab [...] Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets [...].
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:4-32,39-40 (ESV)

Moses (Again, not 100% directly stated)

But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
Jude 9 (ESV)

Related:
Answer to "What is the Biblical basis for the belief that there are humans in heaven now?"
Did Adam and Eve end up getting saved?

I think you're reading far too much into the scriptures you quoted.
"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" could be translated "a whirlwind into the sky", and whirlwinds are an atmospheric phenomenon, having nothing to do with God's spiritual abode. Elijah was even seen alive here on Earth after that incident.
"kingdom of heaven" is Matthew's euphemism for "Kingdom of God" (his target audience was Jews, and he wanted to avoid direct references to God).
The Kingdom will be here on Earth during the Millennium.
None of the other quoted verses even mention heaven.

To answer the Title question, yes, but those lists contain only one name.
I remember in the 1960s hearing a late night radio preacher offering $1000 reward to anyone that could show where the Bible says that any of us will go to God's heaven.
Here's one of his early instances of that offer.

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)
Only Christ who came from heaven has ever ascended to heaven of all human
men, all human beings on the earth. No man has ascended up to heaven.
Now I want to take you through a few scriptures. How do you know? I
didn't know at one time, and I began to see something in the
scriptures that at that time I didn't agree with. And I began to find
I was wrong, and I found God was right. And you know, I had to give up
what I believed. And if you'll blow the dust off your Bible and look
into your Bible awhile you'll begin to find the same thing.
Now you hear people talk about going to heaven; I heard a minister say on the
air before millions of people; "The Bible says, 'when we all get to
heaven'." I'll give that man a thousand dollars if he'll show me where
the Bible says that, because it doesn't say anything of the kind. Not
anywhere in your Bible - it teaches just the opposite. What does God
say? Will you agree with God? Or do you think God is wrong, and all of
the people are right?
—Not In Heaven - The World Tomorrow Radio Broadcast


What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16? For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
  (John 3:16, NIV)

What is the Roman Catholic way of interpreting John 3:16, the most popular verse in the Bible? What does the word "perish" mean?

I can't answer for the Catholic interpretation of Perish in John 3:16, but I can give you the Catholic approach to reading the Bible and my opinion of that.  It's all pretty obvious and doesn't help, but should shed light on why this is an unanswerable (yet good) question.
The four senses of scripture

Literal
John 3:16 literally means "shall not perish", the same way Jesus said to Peter later in the Book that the disciple whom He loved might live until He returns.

Moral
John 3:16 instructs the faithful just how much God the Father loves His children. If you love someone you will make the ultimate sacrifice for them.

Metaphorical
Perish could mean die a spiritual death as easily as it means die a physical death.  To die in ones sins, would be a metaphorical interpretation of the word perish.

Eternal
Here's where perish means, suffer the fire of hell and that would be true too.

So, there's 4 legitimate ways of looking at the same piece of scripture neither of which negate the other, neither of which are authoritative.


Where will believers spend eternity? Since Jesus said, "No man goeth into Heaven, but He who hath come from Heaven," John 3:13. Where then is the place that Jesus will prepare for us...that we will be with for eternity?

Disembodied souls now live in heaven or hell.

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8, NIV)
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43, NIV)

After the final judgment their will be a new heaven and earth and the disembodied souls in heaven and hell will also receive new bodies. (Rev ch 19 & 20)

However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:14-15, NIV)

The verse you mention is a different subject all together. Jesus was trying to explain spiritual things that could partly be comprehended by similar earthly things. However the deep things Jesus had to say about his being sent from heaven to the world to die and resurrect for the salvation of all men who believe does not have earthly references to refer to. In fact this deep knowledge of salvation can never be arrived at by a human ascending into heaven, into  the region of absolute and eternal truth, so as to look upon it face to face. No man has ever done so.  The only way this knowledge can be attainted is by the One who came from heaven. He alone through the incarnation is the one that descends and rises back into that eternal place who alone  possesses that knowledge and declare it to men. By faith in Him and his death, we also rise to live with him, first the soul and then the body. Upon faith in this eternal son the descended and ascended back into heaven does one obtain life and knowledge.  This was too much for Nicodemus to understand at the time as we was stumbling over smaller things such as the new birth which have its fruits seen here on earth and referenced to earthly things to help us understand it.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. (John 3:10-14, NIV)


Why would cold running water be preferred for baptism? The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (an early Christian text not part of the New Testament) says of baptism (chapter 7):

  On the subject of baptism, baptise thus: after having taught all that precedes, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If for some reason you do not have living water, baptize in other water; and if you are not able to in cold water, in warm water. If you do not have enough of one or the other, pour out water three times on the head, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer, the baptized and others who can, observe first a fast; as for the baptized, you must enforce a fast beforehand for one or two days.

"Living water" is usually assumed to mean "running water", like the river Jordan in which Jesus was baptized.

What is the reason for preferring running water over still water, and cold water over warm water?

I know some people who were baptized in the sea; would that count as living water, or does the term only refer to rivers? (It certainly met the preference for cold water, by all accounts.)

You may find this link of interest:

http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1998/regeneration.htm

And here is the significant part, where they talk about the significance of running water and cold water:

  The main points here related to the topic of regeneration are (as in
  Ignatius' works) implicit, in a discussion primarily centered around
  the baptismal mode. There is a stress on baptism in living and cold
  water. Living water is likely preferred because rivers had symbolic
  significance as boundaries of transition in the ancient world. The
  living water emphasis also has Jewish parallels. Water which was
  running is also still connected to its natural source (J. Draper. The
  Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1996:46,218). Cold
  water may have been prescribed because of the shocking nature, which
  would make baptism a memorable event. Interestingly, however, if these
  types of water are not available, or even if enough water is not
  available to immerse, the great importance of baptism is seen in the
  admonition to do so in at least some fashion regardless of the
  resources at hand. The emphasis of living water is especially
  consistent with concepts of a change in the baptized person's life.

I found this quote of interest, if you search for the word 'leper', in http://www.christian-history.org/water-baptism-quotes.html, as it would seem that running water would also be better if we are to be cleansed.

  For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred
  water and the invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions,
  being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes,

There are other thoughts that this is based also on the Jewish traditions, but I think that is getting into a different area than the question was intended.


How is Matthew 24:36 explained by trinitarians? In Matthew 24:36 Jesus is quoted saying, that even he does not know when the end of the world will come, only God (the Father) alone.

I'm interested in how the major trinitarian denominations explain this.

I think in order to understand things like this it is necessary to come to terms with how Jesus operated in his earthly ministry.

According to Phillipans 2:5 ff:

  Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Traditional, orthodox Christian teaching is that Jesus, when on earth, was fully God and fully man at the same time.  In order to attain our salvation, the Godhead determined that the act of disobedience in the garden of Eden would be countered by an equal act of obedience.  To that end, by his own divine fiat Jesus, God the Son, chose to limit himself to an exercise of power equal to that which an obedient human could exercise.  That is, he emptied himself of his equality with God and for a time operated out of a limited human power.

All that he knew while in this humbled state he knew because the Father revealed it to him through the Holy Spirit.  That is why we can do "these things and greater", because he operated in the same power and revelation that the Holy Spirit grants the church. As he himself said:

  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19).

In theory at any time, Jesus could have shrugged off the mantel of humanity and resumed his Godly state; but had he done so our salvation would have been lost, perfect obedience would have been broken and the unity of the Trinity would have been shattered.  That last is why I say, in theory, because the area of understanding the dual natures of the Son is a deep mystery that the church can only explore and probe, but never fully understand until we see him in glory in the next life.  Then the great mysteries of God will be revealed to us.

So when Jesus said that he, the Son, did not know the day or the hour of his second coming, he meant only that as the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus in his limited state during his earthly ministry) the Father had not revealed to him the time of his return, only that he would return.


What is the traditional view of Divine Command Theory in accordance to the Reformed tradition? Wikipedia gives the following definition:

  Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an
  action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is
  commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined
  by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands.

But as I have been taught from a young age, God defines morality through his character or his nature and ask us to adhere to this morality as closely as we can. So if God cannot steal then we should not steal as it is in the nature of his character.

But this theory gives me the impression that Christian morality is not formed in any matter in accordance to his character but rather is just a bunch of arbitrarily contrived rules.

So I'm wondering what is the more conventional view in accordance to a general Reformist tradition?

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it slightly differently: "Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands."

Martin Luther said in On the Bondage of the Will:

  God is that Being, for whose will no cause or reason is to be
  assigned, as a rule or standard by which it acts; seeing that, nothing
  is superior or equal to it, but it is itself the rule of all things.
  For if it acted by any rule or standard, or from any cause or reason,
  it would be no longer the will of GOD. Wherefore, what God wills, is
  not therefore right, because He ought or ever was bound so to will;
  but on the contrary, what takes place is therefore right, because He
  so wills.

John Calvin, usually considered the father of reformed theology, said much the same in Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.23.2):

  For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that
  whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be
  considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done,
  we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to
  ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher
  than God’s will, which cannot be found.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, the classic statement of reformed theology, says in chapter 2:

  God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and
  is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient.

In chapter 16 it says:

  Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word.

So it seems clear that reformed theology supports divine command theory. However, your understanding of it is not one shared by reformed theology. Things are good because God commands them, but he commands them because they accord with his character. "God has all ... goodness... in and of Himself," after all.


Who is the comforter? Can somebody explain, who is the comforter?

John 16:12-13

  12I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
  13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all
  the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever
  He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come

But in

John 16:7

  "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
  away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
  if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit?

The comforter is the Holy Spirit according to John 14:26

  But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
  in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
  your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Q: "Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit?"

We know that Jesus was baptised in the Holy Spirit from John 3:16.  But, where Jesus goes, the Holy Spirit goes with him.

Jesus said in John 16:7

  "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
  away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
  if I depart, I will send him unto you."

The key words here are "come unto".

Come - erchomai (meaning from one place to another, to go, to follow
one)
Unto - pros (meaning to the advantage of, at, near, by, towards)

So essentially it means, this.  That the Holy Spirit is with Jesus, but when he assends to the father (after his death and resurrection) he will send the Holy Spirit to be with all believers.  Or to follow all believers.

  1 Cor 6:19 - 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the
  Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your
  own?

Still not convinced that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit?

  John 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
  because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he
  dwells with you, and shall be in you."

The only one we're told that would dwell IN us is The Holy Spirit.  The context of the entire passage is talking about the Holy Spirit.  The Comforter IS the Holy Spirit.  There is none other.  The comforter and Jesus are very much the same character.  Jesus said many times if you know me, you know my father also.  The Holy Spirit exhibits the same character.  If you know Jesus you know the Holy Spirit also.  Do you know him?


Where can I find the original scanned BCP printed in 1662? Where can I find the original scanned Book of Common Prayer printed in 1662?

A lot of sites have the text of the 1662 BCP (or at least they claim to) but I couldn't see any sites with accessible scans.

Your best bet is probably to buy a paperback facsimile.


Should the "angel of the abyss" be capitalized? I am discussing the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses concerning the identity of Abaddon in Revelation 9:11. The names of persons (e.g. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) along with words that are part of certain titles (e.g. Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, and Satan the Devil) are capitalized since they are proper nouns. However, some Bible translations render the term "angel of the Abyss" with a capital "A" in lieu of a lowercase "a" like in other translations.
Revelation 9:11 (NIV):

They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

I find it quite difficult to discern if it warrants capital "A's". Is it a title? Some translators also opt to use a capital "A" when referring to the abyss such as in Luke 8:31 (NIV). Nevertheless, I am not sure if the abyss is specified. Should it be rendered as "angel of the abyss", "Angel of the Abyss", or some other rendering?

Your observation that the NIV capitalises the word “Abyss” is interesting, because none of the other Bible translations I have looked at say “Abyss”.  Instead, they refer to “the bottomless pit”.  Examples:

Revelation 9:11 NWT: They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss.  In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 KJV: And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 ESV: They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit.  His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11 NLT: Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon –the Destroyer.  Notes: The king of the locusts is identified in three ways: (1) as the angel from the bottomless pit (probably different from the fallen star, in Revelation 9:1, who unlocked the abyss rather than coming from it); (2) as Abaddon (“destruction”), often paired with death (see Job 28:22; Psalm 88:11), and (3) as Apollyon – the destroyer (see 1 Corinthians 10:10). There is also a connection with the Roman emperor Domitian, whose patron god Apollo was symbolized by the locust.

The NIV capitalises the name “Abyss” in Luke 8:31 and in the 8 places where the name appears in Revelation.  In Romans 10:7 it uses the expression “the deep”.
The NWT uses the word “abyss” in Luke 8:31, Romans 10:7, Revelation 9:1, 11; 11:7; 17:8; and 20:3. The word is never capitalised.
The KJV uses the expression “the deep” in Luke 8:31 and in Romans 10:7.  Elsewhere, in Revelation, the KJV uses the expression “the bottomless pit”.
Given that the NIV appears to be the only translation that capitalises the word “abyss” perhaps we need to find out why the NIV says “Abyss” when other translations say “the bottomless pit.”
As has already been pointed out, a person’s name (such as Abaddon, Apollyon, Domitian, Apollo) demands capitalisation.  Places that are not proper nouns, such as “the bottomless pit” or “the deep” are written in lower-case.  It therefore seems reasonable to apply that rule to “the abyss”.
Likewise, to say “the angel” is correct.  If the Bible gives a name to an angel (for example, Michael or Gabriel) then it would still be correct to say “the angel Michael” or “the angel Gabriel” because there are millions of angels.  Angels are not unique.  But names are.
Why the NIV is the exception to that rule concerning "the abyss", I cannot say.


How do Protestantism and the LDS Church differ as to what is required for a believer to attain salvation and eternal life? What is the difference between what Protestantism and the LDS Church teach about what is needed to attain salvation and life in eternity?

Good answers will summarise the doctrines of both with quotes from official sources and with some scriptures which are used to support those positions.

Protestants believe in Five Solas for how salvation is attained:

Sola Fide, by faith alone.

  To teach that besides faith in Christ other devices like works, or the
  observance of rules, traditions, or ceremonies are necessary for the
  attainment of righteousness and everlasting life, is to make Christ and His
  salvation of no benefit to anybody. 1

Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.

  What is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed.2

Solus Christus, through Christ alone.

  A new creature is one in whom the image of God has been renewed. Such
  a creature cannot be brought into life by good works, but by Christ alone. 3

Sola Gratia, by grace alone.

  teaches that we must be saved solely by the grace of God 4

Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.5

So no action, ritual, or thing that you do helps because God's grace doesn't depend on our works. Some Protestants believe once you're saved there is nothing you can do to jeopardize your salvation. Others believe it is possible to lose it.

The LDS believe there are two parts of salvation:

Physical salvation

  All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death.6

Spiritual salvation - you are saved after all that you can do. You show your faith by works/actions (James 2:17-26, Salvation by Grace or by Works)

  Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior's Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual's continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God 6,7

For a more in-depth response to LDS belief on salvation refer to this answer.

The difference is that Protestants don't believe anything a man does matters as long as he follows the five solas (faith, scripture, Christ, grace, and glory to God alone) he is saved. The LDS believe that if you have faith you will repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end; then you will be saved by grace.

All emphasis was added

1 http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/epistle-to-the-galatians/5/, Ephesians 2:8

2 http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-34/dr-luthers-theology.html, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 2:16

3 http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/epistle-to-the-galatians/6/, Acts 4:12, Hebrews 7:25, Romans 8:34

4 https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/luther-on-grace-alone-sola-gratia/, Ephesians 2:8

5 http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/1-corinthians/10-31.html

6 https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng&old=true, 1 Corinthians 15:22

7 Acts 2:37-38, 2 Peter 2:20-22, John 3:5


Why did Mary need to remain a virgin during pregnancy according to those who deny the perpetual virginity doctrine? After much editing and clarifying through comments this question seems to have asked and had answered from Catholic perspective why Mary stayed a virgin throughout her pregnancy.

Yet  many Christians do not agree with perpetual virginity doctrine but still  agree that Mary did remain virgin until after giving birth based on Matthew 1:25:

  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (KJV).

What biblical reasons are there for the necessity of Mary refraining from sexual relations with Joseph during the time she was carrying the baby Jesus?

Ever-virgin dogma is the belief that Mary was a virgin during pregnancy, during birth, and after Christ's birth in her marriage to Joseph.

Whether one submits to this Papal dogma or is someone who believes that Christ was born normally or Mary/Joseph had sex and children sometime after His birth, they both, indeed all Christians, believe the prophecy that the virgin would conceive and bear a son.

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Isaiah 7:14

The virgin will CONCEIVE (get pregnant) and the virgin will BEAR (bring forth, travail, deliver).  Two-pronged prophecy:  Conceive and give birth as a virgin.

IOW, even the same question posed for a Catholic answer was given Isaiah 7:14.

So again, the reason why Mary had to remain a virgin during her pregnancy was to fulfill scripture.

PS. This answer really has nothing to do with what came later that the Catholic dogma denies: that is, whether Mary/Joseph consummated their marriage or not (they did), whether Mary took a vow of chastity or not (she didn't), or even whether Jesus was born normally in the normal (human) way (He was).  So, try not to derail the same answer that a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant would give.


How did the Roman Punishment "cross" became a holy symbol to Christians? The Romans used the cross as punishment to those who didn't follow Roman laws & principles.
How then did the Roman punishment "cross" became a holy symbol to Christians?

In mosaic law the Priests would offer sacrifice and do this on a table, the table was referred to as an alter.  Christ who offered himself up as a sacrifice for all, offered himself up on a Cross. His symbol is often referred to as a tree.

In the Catholic Church when you enter into the sanctuary you bow down to three places mostly. First to the tabernacle (if the candle is lit, at the last few days of lent the Lord is removed from the tabernacle). You bow there with adoration as if (because he is there) you are bowing before Christ himself.  Then to the alter of sacrifice which is a veneration rather than an adoration,  and then to the cross itself as if to aide in your mind the fact that where you stand is Calvery at the foot of the Cross with Mary the Mother of the Lord, where Christ continually offers himself to God The Father daily. Not a new sacrifice but he same sacrifice re-presented.

Being Holy means being set apart. A cross used by Roman executioners means nothing, but a cross with the Lord hanging from it now that is Christ Crucified and that is what the Church Preaches.  Anything else is simply two sticks or a cross empty of Christ.