Christian folklore, traditions and legends concerning plants? With the present situation of the coronavirus affecting many of us, and many sensing the need to be able to get outside and do something, if one’s local restrictions permit it, I would like be able to go out “in the wild” and be able to identify various plants that are either related to Christian folklore and/or Christian symbolisms of some sort.

What got my interest in this subject was when I was doing research on Christian traditions with foodstuffs from around the world.

For example, some time ago I came across an interesting tidbit (at least for me) about Ostrich ferns also known as the fiddlehead fern:

  Fiddleheads or fiddlehead greens are the furled fronds of a young fern, harvested for use as a vegetable.

  The fiddlehead resembles the curled ornamentation (called a scroll) on the end of a stringed instrument, such as a violin. **It is also called a crozier, after the curved staff used by bishops, which has its origins in the shepherd's crook **. - Fiddlehead fern (Wikipedia)

Another more common example can be found in the plant known as St. John’s Wort:

  The common name "St John's wort" may refer to any species of the genus Hypericum. Therefore, Hypericum perforatum is sometimes called "common St John's wort" or "perforate St John's wort" to differentiate it.

  St John's wort is named as such because it commonly flowers, blossoms and is harvested at the time of the summer solstice in late June, around St John's Feast Day on 24 June. The herb would be hung on house and stall doors on St John's Feast day to ward off evil spirits and to safeguard against harm and sickness to man and live-stock. The genus name Hypericum is possibly derived from the Greek words hyper and eikon, in reference to the tradition of hanging plants over religious icons in the home during St John's Day.

Thus my question is as follows: Does there exist a good resource material source book that deals with such plants involving Christian folklore, legends and traditions? Symbolism is likewise included.

If no book truly is out there, I would then prefer an online source of information. For what it is worth, I am not limiting this question to any specific Christian tradition. Any sources in other languages or non English countries are also welcome.

Christian folklore, traditions and legends concerning plants?

This post is a community wiki answer, so that others may add their own appropriate or interesting (local) Christian plant lore if so desired.

There certainly no one source that will cover everything about Christian plant folklore, traditions, legends and symbolism.

One of the best sources, I found, can be seen in the book Plant Lore, Legends and Lyrics (Myths, Traditions, Superstitions  and Folklore of the Plant Kingdom) by Richard Folkard Jr. Chapter 5 (page 40) deals with The Plants of the Christian Church. This chapter deals with plant on a biblical basis, as well as in relation to the lives of saints and Christian festivals and feast days.

For plants in the bible the Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article published as such: Plants in the Bible.

Some modern named plants are not readily known. For example I remember being asked out to dinner with a family that ate only cheese and fruits at lunch. In the course of the meal we ate some passionfruit. No one knew the origin of why this fruit was called thus and it was decided that we I’d not know which Passion, it was to stimulate? We were all wet behind the ears on this topic.

If fact the passionfruit can be found in Mexico, Central and South America. The symbolism of the  passion flower is as follows:

  The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion:

  Blue passion flower (P. caerulea) showing most elements of the Christian symbolism.
  The pointed tips of the leaves were taken to represent the Holy Lance.
  The tendrils represent the whips used in the flagellation of Christ.
  The ten petals and sepals represent the ten faithful apostles (excluding St. Peter the denier and Judas Iscariot the betrayer)
  The flower's radial filaments, which can number more than a hundred and vary from flower to flower, represent the crown of thorns.
  The chalice-shaped ovary with its receptacle represents a hammer or the Holy Grail.
  The 3 stigmas represent the 3 nails and the 5 anthers below them the 5 wounds (four by the nails and one by the lance).
  The blue and white colors of many species' flowers represent Heaven and Purity.
  In addition, the flower keeps open three days, symbolising the three years' ministry.
  The flower has been given names related to this symbolism throughout Europe since that time. In Spain, it is known as espina de Cristo ("thorn of Christ'"). Older Germanic names include Christus-Krone ("Christ's crown"), Christus-Strauss ("Christ's bouquet"), Dorn-Krone ("crown of thorns"), Jesus-Lijden ("Jesus' passion"), Marter ("passion") or Muttergottes-Stern ("Mother of God's star").

Bouquets of basil leaf are blessed on the Feast of the Exsultation of the Cross (September 14) and sprinkled with Holy Water, after a legend that this herb grew at the foot of the Our Lord’s Cross on Good Friday. This is equally an Orthodox pius tradition and pius belief.

  Some account for the connection between the herb basil and the Cross as follows:

  The herb, basil has long been associated with today’s feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The word “basil” is related to basileios, from the Greek word for king.

  According to the liturgical legend, the Empress Saint Helena found the location of the True Cross by digging for it under a colony of basil. Basil plants were reputed to have sprung up at the foot of the Cross where fell the Precious Blood of Christ and the tears of the Mother of Sorrows.

  A sprig of basil was said to have been found growing from the wood of the True Cross. On the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross it is customary in the East to rest the Holy Cross on a bed of basil before presenting it to the veneration of the faithful.

  Also, from the practice in some areas of strewing branches of basil before church communion rails, it came to be known as Holy Communion Plant. The blessed basil leaf can be arranged in a bouquet at the foot of the crucifix; the dried leaves can also be used by the faithful as a sacramental. - Blessing of Basil on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Birch boughs and (St. John Wort, as well as other plants and flowers were used to decorate the the Church doors in England on St. John’s Eve (June 23) in the 16th century.
Source

  The Baptist's day, midsummer day, was a general holiday, when everyone did indeed rejoice, a day full of games and sports and dancing. On the eve of the feast everyone's door "decorated with birch leaves, St. John's wort and white lilies and such-like, garnished upon with garlands of beautiful flowers, had also lamps of glass, with oil burning in them all the night. . . - Catholic Activity: St. John the Baptist's Day


Ex Cathedra -- are there other Christian groups besides Catholicism that use a similar tactic? We're all familiar with the concept of the papal infallibility and how the pope is considered infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, which creates a lot of wiggle room since there is really no clear criteria for determining when he's speaking ex cathedra (my opinion, but see Can we tell when the Roman pontiff is speaking "EX CATHEDRA"? and its many duplicates), and that he's sitting down apparently doesn't mean anything even though that's the literal translation (from a chair). This ex cathedra thing creates a sort of "Nope, he didn't say Simon says, so that doesn't count" effect.  Anyway my question is not at all about that.  My question is are there any other Christian groups, sects, denominations, that use a similar tactic to prevent their leader from the appearance of having taught false doctrine?  For example: Might Mormons use the same kind of argument to prevent the appearance that their prophets contradict each other infallibly?

Mormons do, in fact, have a somewhat similar doctrine, but more limited in scope: that the President of the Church cannot lead the church into apostasy with false doctrine.

  The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

  -- President Wilford Woodruff, October 1890 (emphasis added)


Biblical era gesture signifying peace between two parties? I am working on a painting set in the Biblical era which shows a military group confronting another group.

I am trying to find a gesture which the leader of one army would make to indicate that they are at peace with, or have peaceful intentions toward the other party.

Does anyone know of anything like that?

Specifically I am thinking of a gesture which would be understood this way in the first century, but a gesture from previous biblical eras would probably also work.

Typically in the Old Testament, they would send emissaries to negotiate covenants with their enemies.

  Luke 14:31-32 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

Other references:  Josh 9:6, 2 Samuel 3:12-13, 1 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 18:23, Genesis 23:8-9, and others.


Was Paul advocating killing a man because of sexual immorality? 1 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV)

  5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Here we have Paul referring to a man that was sleeping with 'his father's wife'. It seems from the way the phrase reads that Paul would see this man's flesh destroyed, if not directly by the members of the Corinthian church then indirectly, through the agency of Satan.

What is the meaning of the phrase 'destruction of the flesh'? If Paul is advocating killing him then what are the ramifications?

No.  Paul was advocating kicking him out of the Church, not killing him.

The fact that it means to kick the person out of the Church is clarified in verse 12: (Emphasis added.)

  12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are
  you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel
  the wicked person from among you.”

The way I understand it is this: The idea is to not turn a blind eye to sin, but to confront it and deal with it, particularly within the body of the Church.  To turn a blind eye to sin does nothing but encourage it.  To confront it and make it clear that it is not to be tolerated within the Church is better, because it forces the sinner to either acknowledge the sin and repent, or leave the Church, where they will not pollute it further.

A person cannot repent if they are put to death, so this clearly cannot be stating that we are to put the sinner to death.

There is a nice version of this verse here that clarifies the meaning of the original Greek word that is translated as "the flesh".  Due to language difference and cultural differences, the original meaning often gets lost in translation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=NIV

Footnote below:

  1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh
  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as
  a power in opposition to the Spirit.


Why must God reach the fullness of Glory (reformed theology)? Reformed theology stresses that God created the universe for one purpose: to glorify him fully. And to reach the fullness of Glory, God must demonstrate all that would glorify him. This means that to demonstrate things like wrath and grace, there must first be misery. It's a very tidy theodicy, except it leaves me wondering why God cares about the fullness of Glory so much. The theology makes God out to be self-obsessed, and that he must prove (to whom exactly?) that he's perfect at everything. Humanity is a means to an end.

The purpose of creation being for God's glory is a given, but I guess the question is why? Why is creation about that? Why must God show his full Glory, and is there even anyone to fully appreciate it in the first place?

I want to be sure that answers focus on reformed theological positions and preferably quote known theologians and any accompanying scriptures.

Question inspired by this answer.

Let me answer a few of your side-concerns before I get to your main question.

Reformed theology stresses that God created the universe for one purpose:    to glorify him fully

I'm not certain how you're using the phrase "glorify him fully", but it could be interpreted to mean that God felt that he wasn't being glorified enough prior to creation, and therefore created the universe and ordained all events so that in the end he could finally get the glory he had been missing.

That may not be what you're saying at all, but let me just clear it up in case you're wondering about that.  Here's John Piper:

  This is why God created the world — “that he may be glorified.” Which does not mean:
  “that he may be made glorious.” Don’t take the word “glorify” and treat it like the
  word “beautify.” To beautify means to take a plain room and make it beautiful. We
  don’t take a plain God and make him beautiful. That is not what glorifying God means.

  When God created the world he did not create out of any need or any weakness or any
  deficiency. He created out of fullness and strength and complete sufficiency. As
  Jonathan Edwards said, “Tis no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain
  that it is inclined to overflow” (Yale: Works, Vol. 8, 448). So we don’t glorify God
  by improving his glory, but by seeing and savoring and showing his glory (which is the
  same as knowing, loving, showing).

and Jonathan Edwards:

  [Nothing would] imply any indigence, insufficiency, and mutability in God; or any dependence of the Creator on the creature, for any part of his perfection or happiness. Because it is evident, by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy: that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature; or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being.

The theology makes God out to be self-obsessed.

Self-love is an ugly thing in sinful creatures.  But consider who God is.  He's the most perfect, wonderful, pure, holy, sinless, morally good, and valuable being in existence.  And for that reason, it is completely appropriate for God to love himself above everything else.

When you and I act in a humble, self-deprecating manner, we are acting in a way appropriate to our sinful nature.  But there is no cause for God to be humble or self-deprecating - in fact, it would be entirely inappropriate for him to act as if there was anything higher, greater or more praiseworthy than himself.  Since there is nothing more glorious than God, nothing should receive greater praise than God...  including from God himself.
Now, to answer your question, it is correct to say that God created the universe for his own glory--that is, to receive recognition, honor, and delight from mankind.  From your question it sounds like you already agree that the Bible makes that clear, so I won't focus on proving that.  If you'd like to see that in the Bible, try passages like Isaiah 43:6-7, Ephesians 1:5-6, Isaiah 40:4-5, Romans 1:20-21, and Philippians 1:20.  I can give you more if that would be helpful.

But where many people go wrong is in assuming that God acts like a narcissistic dictator, demanding worship from people who are either groveling slaves or simpering sycophants, and smiting them in wrath if they don't.  But that's not the right way to think of God's glory at all.  Here's Sereno Dwight, writing about Jonathan Edwards:

  From the purest principles of reason, as well as from the fountain of revealed truth, he demonstrates that the chief and ultimate end of the Supreme Being, in the works of creation and providence, was the manifestation of his own glory in the highest happiness of his creatures.

John Piper, who I've quoted before and is one of the pre-eminant reformed pastors of our day, has centered his life's work on this realization that God's glory has a direct bearing on our happiness.  His most famous statement, and the underpining of "Desiring God Ministries" is:

  God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him .

One last quote on this from Jonathan Edwards:

  God in seeking his glory seeks the good of his creatures, because the emanation of his glory... implies the... happiness of his creatures. And in communicating his fullness for them, he does it for himself, because their good, which he seeks, is so much in union and communion with himself. God is their good. Their excellency and happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of God’s glory. God, in seeking their glory and happiness, seeks himself, and in seeking himself, i.e. himself diffused... he seeks their glory and happiness.

  Thus it is easy to conceive how God should seek the good of the creature... even his happiness, from a supreme regard to himself; as his happiness arises from... the creature’s exercising a supreme regard to God... in beholding God’s glory, in esteeming and loving it, and rejoicing in it.

One of the implications of this is that refusing to seek the glory of God is not only sinful in the light of who God is - it is self-destructive of a person's own happiness.

  Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD,
  for my people have committed two evils:
  they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters,
  and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:12-13)

So to conclude, the Bible teaches that God's glory -- the praising and honoring of the greatest being imaginable -- is the very basis for human happiness.  Therefore in creating the universe for his own glory, God gives the greatest gift to those who glorify him - the gift of himself.  God's didn't create the world because he needed our praise.  Rather, he is completely satisfied and delighted in himself, and in the overflow of his delight he created us so that we too could glorify him, be delighted in him, and find in him our greatest happiness and satisfaction.  The most loving thing God can ever do for a person is to give that person a sense of God's own infinite worth.

Here are some references.  I highly commend the first one two you.  If you prefer to jump straight to some of the objections that could be raised against God seeking to glorify himself, you might want to go right to page 162.

God's Passion For His Glory
(the free PDF link is under the book cover)

Why Did God Create the World?

How Does It Glorify God to Predestine People to Hell?

Is God a Monster?

God Wants to Show His Wrath (Romans 9:22–23, Part 1)

The Ultimate Purpose of the Universe (Romans 9:22-23, Part 2)


Why do adherents to Hypostatic Union believe that God the Son (Jesus) must be fully Human? Orthodox teaches that Jesus assumed the full human nature. Why is it necessary that he is fully human?

Historically, the position of the church on Christology has been explained as "hypostatic union, meaning that Jesus was fully God and fully man).  In the late 300s, Nestorius taught that Jesus' natures were separate.  The problem comes when you consider salvation.

In any Satisfaction theory of atonement, the 'victim' that satisfies God's wrath must be a viable substitute.  As the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) writes:

  The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person," then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

Put another way, satisfaction is untenable, because the sacrifice cannot stand in for the crime.

The opposite error was Eutychism or Monophysitism which ignores the human nature and is not supported by Scripture. Related forms would be if God the Son merely appeared to be human (the heresy of Docetism or Apollinarism.

Monophysitism in general was considered heretical because it denies either the divine or the human nature. Biblically, this negates key passages such as Philippians 2:5-11:

  Who, being in very nature[a] God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
  7 rather, he made himself nothing
      by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      by becoming obedient to death—
          even death on a cross!

or Hebrews 4:15:

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.

that emphasize Christ's ability to sympathize with our humanity. Absent a human nature, that would be a lie.

Liberals, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. go further with this. As he writes:

  Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmest of his devotion to God and the intimacy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

In his moral influence understanding, his human nature that adopted a divine one required as a starting point a human one.


Is Judas liable for his betrayal sin? In Luke we are told,

Luke 22:3And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. 4And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.

So then, did Judas sin or was it Satan inside him sinning?

If a computer hacker uses my computer to comit a crime all liability falls on the hacker using my computer. In the same way Satan utilized Judas as a vessel.

Did Judas have free will in this matter (elsewhere in the Bible it says “Resist Satan and he will flee from you”, does that apply here?)

Judas' moral state becomes clear with the later disclosure by John that Judas was stealing and, by that theft, was depriving others of much needed charitable contributions.This deliberate moral state - the repeated act of theft - needs to be considered in juxtaposition to the stated question, as it paved the way for Satan's entrance.

Judas had not been resisting Satan over the matter of secret theft.

This paved the way for much greater sin, later. Then, Satan came in like a flood and took him over completely.

  Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. John 12 5,6 KJV.

The covetousness is apparent, the very calculation of value (and lost revenue to the thief) gives him away. This precipitated something within him. Was his betrayal a matter of recuperating the lost opportunity ?

What a shocking state he was already in ! He is irked by the loving act of the woman who 'squandered' the treasure of the spice on Jesus, anointing him for his burial, which was the only preparation received since, later, the women who went to anoint him, found him already risen.

Those around Judas were involved in charitable works, and in devotion to the Lord. He was fixated with money.


What is the biblical basis for the assignment of patron saints? Within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy specifically (there may be more) there are many patron saints. Is there any biblical basis that exists for the assignment of a patron saint?

The word "saint" can historically and philologically be shown to originate in the Greek texts that would later be bound together as the NT, although Christianity retroactively applied the title to non-humans in the OT (like angels, as in St Michael). The invocation of saints is a phenomenon that started in the Roman period, so clearly something changed regarding the interpretation of the Greek word in Latin.

Let's look for example at Acts 9:13:

In Ancient Greek, the word for saints here is ἁγίοις (note that throughout the NT the word is always used in, or implies, plural). The word ἅγιος appears 229 times in the Greek New Testament, and has few usages in older Greek texts. Its primary meaning is "devoted to the gods".

Note that Acts refers to a time when Christianity did not exist or was not widespread (the text is dated to around 70 CE), so the "saints" referred to here are generally held by philologists to be all Jews or Christians, i.e. God's chosen people. So in the original Greek, the word does not refer to any specific select group of Christians or Jews who served "better". This is confirmed in the translations of Acts 26:10, Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2, and 1 Peter 1:15-16

The word ἅγιος stems from Proto-Indo-European *Hyeh₂ǵ-yus. Cognates include Latin iēiūnus (mostly used in Latin as "to sacrifice (to the Gods)", which interestingly is not used in any Latin translation although the meaning is closer to the Greek than sanctus, which is used in most Latin translations.

The word sanctus has widespread use in texts predating Christianity in Latin, mostly in Roman religion. The word divus or devus, also referring to Roman religion and frequently used as a title for Roman emperors, was used as well as a translation for ἅγιος in early texts. This is illustrated in a pamphlet, published in 1865 in Italian, titled "Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina "divus" nell'epigrafia cristiana". This can be translated as "On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term "divus" in christian epigraphy."

So in stead of iēiūnus the Latin texts used sanctus and devus, probably because these words had more resonance with the Roman population of the day, but this is the probable root of the re-interpretation of ἅγιος implying all Jews or Christians to "a select few", and the worship of those "select few", as had been the tradition in Roman culture. Thus the worship of Saints very likely finds its roots in the deification and worship of important Roman figures like the Roman emperor, not in the original Greek NT.


Do all believers receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but only a few are filled with the Holy Spirit post conversion? The following passages seem to support that all believers receive the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion:
Ephesians 1:13 (NIV)

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Romans 8:9 (NIV)

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

However, in the book of Acts we find examples of individuals who were already believers but still experienced a post-conversion infilling of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 2:1-4 (NIV)

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 4:31 (NIV)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Acts 8:14-17 (NIV)

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44-46 (NIV)

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Acts 19:1-7 (NIV)

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Is receiving the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit different events, with the former happening to all believers at conversion whereas the latter may happen post-conversion, possibly more than once and not necessarily to all believers?
What is an overview of how Christian denominations answer this question?

To answer this question I will examine the following verses - most of which were quoted by the OP.

Eph 1:13, 4:30 - And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit ... And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Thus, all people who experience a genuine conversion to Christ receive in some form, the gift of the Holy Spirit

Rom 8:9 - You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

This confirms the above point that it is impossible to be a Christian without the gift of the Holy Spirit.  This is further confirmed by other references such as Gal 5:22 where we need the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit of the Spirit and John 16:13 tells us we need the Spirit to even know Jesus.
Now compare two texts in Acts:

Acts 2:3, 4 - They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

... and ...

Acts 4:31 - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Now by placing these two verse side by side we see that many of the same people (the apostles plus others) were present on both occasions.  In both cases the description includes the idea of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and miraculous things occurred.  This does NOT mean that the apostles were emptied of the Holy Spirit between these two events; rather, it simply means that "filled with the Holy Spirit" appears to be a Hebraism for an occasion where the power of the Holy Spirit is displayed as His discretion.
Thus, while the apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the upper room in Acts 1, they were "Filled with the Holy Spirit" on other occasions which means that the Holy Spirit decided to use these people to work miracles such as heal the sick, speak in tongues or whatever in a significant way.
UPDATE
In several places such as Acts 8:14-17, 19:6, etc we see instances of groups or people receiving the gift of the spirit for the first time.  The disciples received the Holy Spirit when it was given by Jesus in John 20:22.  In subsequent instances such as Acts 2:3, 4, 4:8, 31, etc, we have a simple record that the disciples were filled or were full of the Spirit - a state that was constant with the faithful (eg apostles) after they received the Spirit.


What does it mean to "be saved" It seems common in Christian communities (and in questions on this site) for people to say they have been saved.  What does someone mean by this when they say it?  How would I know that I have been saved and is there a particular moment of saving I should be able to identify?

In order for the language of being "saved" to make sense one has to understand what we are being saved FROM. There has to be a before and after scenario. We are saved from the wrath of God. Those without faith in Christ are described as children of wrath.

Consider this passage that uses the language of being "saved" including some details on our original position before God, the change that happens, and our final standing after salvation as well as the key operative bits on how that actually happens:

  Ephesians 2:1-9 (ESV)
  1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

That wrath was meted out on Christ (Isaiah 53:5) and by bearing this punishment and separation from the Father, He claimed the right to make us Sons. He transferred us from the domain of darkness into the light.

  Colossians 1:1-14 (ESV)
  11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Returning to the language of Ephesians above, "being saved" means being made alive, to be raised up with Christ. A few verses after the Colossians passage above it talks about how God reconciled us to Himself through Christ.

To "be saved" thus means to be rescued from the wrath of God, made alive in Christ and reconciled to the Father. The pre-salvation scenario thus has us as an object of God's wrath, the post-salvation scenario has us as objects of His affections and co-heirs with Christ.


Can a person prove that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament without going to the New Testament? Sometimes as christians when we are talking to the Jews, we tell them the Old Testament refers to the coming of Jesus Christ. It's like we are forcing our beliefs unto them by using references from the Old Testament and adding Jesus Christ there.

How can you prove or is it possible to prove to a Jew from a book (New Testament) that they already reject that indeed Jesus is the awaited Messiah?

Without the New Testament, I think it's impossible to prove that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah. It's like a Muslim telling us that Mohammad is the comforter by using the Qur'an. While we already know that it's the Holy Spirit.

In Luke 24, Jesus says this to the two men walking to Emmaus:

  25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all
  that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer
  these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses
  and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the
  Scriptures concerning himself.

It appears that Jesus was capable of proving the point. That does not mean that we possess sufficient clarity concerning the meaning of the scriptures to do what he did, but we can through prayer, careful study, and experience approach that goal.


Why does Jesus' Resurrection mean hope for an individual and in what context? This Easter, the phrase "Jesus' Resurrection represents hope for you and your family", was repeatedly stated among different Christian outlets (sermons, radio stations, banners, etc nation wide in the U.S.).

However, not much of an explanation why.

In this question: Why the resurrection?
the Resurrection does not really focus on hope for individuals but more about the hope that Jesus is really God and as a way to heaven.

However, I also found this quote:

  "knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us
  also by Jesus."--2 Corinthians 4:14

So does this hope pertain to an individuals every day life experience here on earth.... or is it a more spiritual hope in Jesus and heaven?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/595852/tagle-christs-resurrection-a-message-of-hope-to-faithful

The hope we have in Jesus's resurrection is that He died for our sins, and He rose from the grave.  We can go to Heaven because of this.  Without Jesus, we would remain condemned in our sins.  Romans explains in detail:

[Rom 6:9-23 NKJV] ... knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.  For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God.  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.  And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God.  For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?  But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.  And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.  I speak in human [terms] because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members [as] slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness [leading] to [more] lawlessness, so now present your members [as] slaves [of] righteousness for holiness.  For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.  What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things [is] death.  But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.  For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The following passages explain further on salvation.

[Rom 5:8 NKJV] But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
[Rom 10:9-13 NKJV] ... that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.  For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
[Jhn 3:16-18 NKJV]  "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.  "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[Eph 2:8-9 NKJV] For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.


On the body of Satan and Holy Ghost and angels according to Mormons This is kind of a follow-up question to my other question about the kind of bodies people will have in heaven, according to Mormons.

From the answers it seems that nobody in heaven has a spirit body.

The questions I would like to ask:

Do Mormons believe that Satan also has only a physical body?
Is there a doctrinal explanation as to why the person "Holy Ghost"
does not have a body?
According to Mormons, if no one in heaven has a physical body, where
does the concept of spirit beings communicating information between
God and humans originate?

1) We believe that Satan does not have and will never have a physical body.  Isa. 14:12:

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

And then, D&C 76:25-27:

  And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in
  authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only
  Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the
  Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, and was
  called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son
  of the morning.  And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even
  a son of the morning!

And finally, D&C 29:36-38:

  And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold,
  the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me
  thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
  heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; and they were
  thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; and, behold,
  there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is
  hell.

We discussed hell and Perdition answering your last set of questions.

The LDS Church believes that all people existed spiritually before the Earth was created.  During that "premortal existence" a council in heaven was held where our Heavenly Father presented his plan for our progression.  (We believe Job 38:4-7 also refers to this council.)  Lucifer's rebellion against our Father's plan sparked the War in Heaven referred to in Rev. 12:7-11.  Having been cast out, he and his followers (a third of the host of heaven) are denied entrance to the Earth and participation in our Father's plan.  Therefore, Lucifer and his followers will not receive bodies.

2) D&C 130:22 teaches the following:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us.

We know very little about the person we refer to as the Holy Ghost.  Being a part of this Plan, as Christ is, Church dogma (vs. doctrine) suggests that He will eventually have the privilege of a mortal body, resurrection, and exaltation.  However, even saying that is simply speculative.  There is simply no scripture or prophetic commentary that I'm aware of on the matter.

3) Remember that "heaven" is a bit more complicated in the LDS faith.  As for where the idea originates, or where the spirits come from, let's start with one verse, D&C 107:20 states:

  The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to
  hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in
  outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of
  repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and
  commandments.

As for where these ministering spirits come from, consider this: before the Earth was created, and speaking only within the realm of this Earth and not on behalf of any other creation of our Heavenly Father (about which we know practically nothing), those of His children destined for this world were all spirits.  Lucifer fell with a third the host, leaving 2/3 of the host destined for this world who would actually come to it (having "kept their first estate," Jude 1:6 and Abraham 3:26-28).  From the creation of Adam until (perhaps just before) the end of the world there will be spirit children of our Father waiting their turn to recieve mortality on this earth.  Excluding Lucifer and his followers (and describing this very simply... there's a lengthy discussion here), people will be receiving resurrection beginning with Jesus and ending with Judgement.  Therefore, spirits (call them angles if you like) are available to do the Father's and the Son's bidding until the very end.


What is the Catholic Church's interpretation of 'hunger and thirst for righteousness'? At Matthew 5:6 (RSVCE), Jesus says: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

The concept of physical hunger and thirst, as we understand today, appears to be far different from that the people of Jesus' time had. If it was spiritual hunger and thirst the Jesus was in deed referring to, the attributes would have been similar. I hope that the Church has explained at length, the deeper meaning of hunger and thirst, as would have been in the mind of Jesus when He spoke on the Mount. I wish to know what the official interpretation of Matthew 6:5  in the specific context of day-to-day life of the time of Jesus, and  offered by the Catholic Church is.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says this about Mt. 5:6:

Ver. 6. Hunger and thirst; i.e. spiritually, with an earnest desire of being just and holy. But others again understand such as endure with patience the hardships of hunger and thirst. (Witham) --- Rupertus understands those to whom justice is denied, such as poor widows and orphans. Maldonatus those who from poverty really suffer hunger and thirst, because justice is not done them. (Menochius) --- They shall be filled with every kind of good in their heavenly country. I shall be filled when thy glory shall appear. (Psalm xvi.)

St. Thomas Aquinas's collection of the snippets from Church Fathers' Scriptural commentary, Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) c. 5 l. 4, says this about Mt. 5:6:

St. Ambrose: As soon as I have wept for my sins, I begin to hunger and thirst after righteousness. He who is afficted with any sort
disease, hath ho hunger.
St. Jerome: It is not enough that we desire righteousness, unless we also suffer hunger for it, by which expression we may understand
that we are never righteous enough, but always hunger after works of
righteousness.
Pseudo-Chrysostom: All good which men do not from love of the good itself is unpleasing before God. He hungers after righteousness who
desires to walk according to the righteousness of God; he thirsts
after righteousness who desires to get the knowledge thereof.
St. Chrysostom: He may mean either general righteousness, or that particular virtue which is the opposite of covetousness. As He was
going on to speak of mercy, He shews before hand of what kind our
mercy should be, that it should not be of the gains of plunder or
covetousness, hence He ascribes to righteousness that which
is peculiar to avarice, namely, to hunger and thirst.
St. Hilary: The blessedness which He appropriates to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shews that the deep longing of
the saints for the doctrine of God shall receive perfect replenishment
in heaven; then "they shall be filled."
Pseudo-Chrysostom: Such is the bounty of a rewarding God, that His gifts are greater than the desires of the saints.
St. Augustine: Or He speaks
of food with which they shall be filled at this present; to wit, that
food of which the Lord spake, "My food is to do the will of my
Father," that is, righteousness, and that water of which whoever
drinks it shall be in him "a well of water springing up to life
eternal."
St. Chrys.: Or, this is again a promise of a temporal reward; for as covetousness is thought to make many rich, He affirms on the
contrary that righteousness rather makes rich, for He who loves
righteousness possesses all things in safety.


What country has the largest Catholic population without a cardinal? Among all extant countries without a priest currently serving as cardinal, which one has the greatest population of Roman Catholics?

And among all extant countries that have never had a priest appointed cardinal, which one has the greatest population of Roman Catholics?

The 24 nations with the largest Catholic populations all are currently represented by cardinals.

Of all nations without cardinals, Bolivia has the largest Catholic population. About 8 million of its 10.5 million people (75%) are Catholic. It has been represented by two cardinals in the past. Guatemala is second in terms of Catholic population, but it has also been represented in the past. Paraguay, with about 6 million Catholics out of 6.8 million people (90%), is third and has never been represented by any cardinals.

It may also interest you to note the nation with the highest proportion of Catholics and no cardinal. Aside from the Vatican, that honor belongs to East Timor, formerly a part of Indonesia (which has had cardinals in the past), with about 97% of its one million people being Catholic.

I primarily used the tables in Wikipedia's list of living cardinals and Catholicism by country articles, but both tables required a little bit of massaging. The spreadsheet I created is available for download here.


Had Moses changed something in the Law as when Deuteronomy 12:15 - 16 is compared to Leviticus 10:10 and 11:4-8? Deuteronomy 12:15-16

  15
      Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy
      soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath
      given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and
      as of the hart.

  16

  Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the
  earth as water.

.

  Leviticus 10:10, 11:4-8

  Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them
      that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth
      not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

  And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is
      unclean unto you.

  And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is
      unclean unto you.

  And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he
      cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

  Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they
      are unclean to you.

Did Moses change the Levitical dietary law perhaps in favor of helping the oft murmuring and pagan worshiping Children of Israel even going so far as to allow them the pleasure of eating whatsoever their soul lusteth after?

Am I missing something here?

Had Moses changed  something in the Law as when Deuteronomy 12:15 - 16 is compared  to Leviticus 10:10 and 11:4-8?

The simple answer is no.

First of all, let us look at the texts in question more closely.

  15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water. - Deuteronomy 12:15-16

  8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and so you can teach the Israelites all the decrees the Lord has given them through Moses.” - Leviticus 10:8-11

  4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. - Leviticus 11:4-8

In all three biblical quotes, Moses is in the mists of defining and explaining what the Law allows and does not allows when it comes to dietary rules for the People of God.

First of all, Moses explains that both clean and unclean amongst the Ancient Israelites may eat the (clean) flesh of animals, which are permitted to be eaten. Here he is simply making a statement. Both those who are clean and those whose are ritually unclean may eat the flesh of animals, but not their blood. Sorry, no blood sausage is permitted. The blood of animals must be poured on the ground.

In both the Leviticus quotes, Moses explains what constitutes is permitted to be eaten or drunk according to the rules of the Law.

For example, if one wishes to go into the tent of meeting, one must not drink fermented beverages prior to doing so. Doing so will make one common and unclean.

The last quote involving Leviticus, Moses is explaining what constitutes unclean animals which may not be eaten by the Chosen People. Again eating unclean animals will make one ritually unclean according to the Law.

I like to look at Moses division between clean and unclean animals as something of being done as a medial officer to keep the People of God healthy. For example, pigs are notorious for passing on worms to other hosts, people included.

Swine flesh if eaten by non-Jewish people must always be well cooked to avoid any contamination from various parasites of this animal. Moses is simply keeping the Ancient Israelites pure and healthy through dietary edicts!

To stay clean do not eat unclean animals!


Why did Luther curse those who oppose indulgences? In the 95 Theses, Luther makes a stand against corruption in the Catholic church of that day. This resulted in events leading to the separation between the Catholic and Protestant churches.

It seems the theses are always referred to, but never actually read. Their content does make me a bit uneasy, especially this part (the English translation used as source):

  71: Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

Or, the original for those that know Latin:

  71: Contra veniarum apostolicarum veritatem qui loquitur, sit ille anathema et maladictus.

Now, I have never heard even one Protestant speak positively about indulgences. What are Luther's motives in saying this (especially in such strong words), and did he later on change his mind?

Edit: Thanks to Caleb's suggestion, I'll add some other relevant theses to provide context.

  67: The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
  68: They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

  91: If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.

It seems quite clear to me that Luther didn't oppose indulgences per se, rather just the sale and abuse of them and the exaggeration of their power. If I'm wrong here, please provide some good references to show that.

Why did Luther curse those who oppose indulgences?

Firstly, he did not curse those who opposed indulgences. He himself was against indulgences. He wrote the 95 theses because of the sale of indulgences:

  Luther, aflame with indignation, challenged the sale of indulgences and demanded that the entire matter be discussed by the scholars of the University. He invited his academic colleagues to a public disputation to consider the Ninety-five Theses, or objections, which he had raised against the sale.

What he said in his 71st thesis, was this "Let those who oppose the truth about indulgences be anathema and accursed". He didn't say "curse those who oppose indulgences," but rather "curse those who are against the truth concerning indulgences."

The "truth about indulgences" was that you cannot buy your own salvation, and Luther was trying to state that. This can be seen in Ephesians 2 : 8,9.

Now, the Catholic priests and pope were trying to oppose this, by saying that what Luther was teaching was false. Thus, Luther says, "those who oppose the truth about indulgences be...cursed". He was cursing the priests and the pope!

Why? Isn't this rather strong?

Consider this. When you get someone who deceives others concerning their salvation, telling them that by paying money, they can save themselves, this person is basically sending the poor gullible people to their damnation. They are systematically dooming people with their sell of indulgences. Isn't that what Satan is actually doing? Trying to draw more people into Hell?

Thus, Luther has good reason to curse those who try to oppose the truth of the indulgences.


What is the Biblical basis against Apostolic Succession? Apostolic succession, in Christianity, the teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the Apostles of Jesus Christ. According to this teaching, bishops possess certain special powers handed down to them from the Apostles; these consist primarily of the right to confirm church members, to ordain priests, to consecrate other bishops, and to rule over the clergy and church members in their diocese (an area made up of several congregations).(source).
Apostolic Succession means that the current ministers of the church derive their authority by unbroken succession from the apostles. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans accept this concept but it is denied by most Protestants.
What is the Biblical basis against Apostolic Succession?

Protestants are not generally against the idea of certain individuals having been called and gifted by God to exercise authority over a local assembly of believers, nor a hierarchy within that assembly, nor even a limited regional hierarchy within a denomination.  If this authority were what the idea of apostolic succession detailed there would be little difficulty.  It is the exercise of strong regional and ultimately global authority, which seems to be the ultimate outcome of apostolic succession as practiced by some traditions, that alarms most protestants.
Perhaps the biggest biblical basis against the passing of the apostolic office at a global level is the lack of biblical support for the notion.  There is clear and plenteous basis for the notion of guarding and passing on the apostolic message, which is the gospel of God, but the office of apostle is clearly a gifting of God, clearly held by multiple men at the same time and it is clearly not necessary for the succession to remain unbroken for the message to remain, for it is God who protects both his truth and his elect.
In both 1 Timothy and Titus we are given fairly specific lists of the attributes that Paul wants Timothy and Titus to look for in appointing overseers of churches.  Neither list indicates anything sounding like the passing of a mantle of apostolic authority.  In each list the qualifications appear as blameless character, good report, etc.  In fact, what is portrayed is the time tested fruit of the spirit in the lives of these men which qualify them as elders/bishops/overseers.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. - 1 Timothy 3:2-7
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. - Titus 1:5-9

Just as Timothy was charged by Paul to exhort, rebuke, teach, and correct so Titus was commanded by Paul to do so with all authority.  Both of these men were to teach what they had seen and heard from Paul and that which was in accord with the Scriptures with the faith and love of Christ by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

There is nothing in the Scripture that indicates some specialized process of seminary training (not that education is bad) that qualifies a person for leadership of a church.  Apostles, pastors, teachers, etc are called and gifted by God through the Holy Spirit which is given by and upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Men are then recognized within a particular body of believers for lives which demonstrate the truth they espouse and those men are set apart for a particular ministry.
The resistance to the kind of Apostolic Succession which leads to a consolidation of authority in one man was nothing newly begun in the Protestant Reformation.  Many of the Church Fathers wrote as early as the 3rd Century in opposition to the idea of the passing of the primacy of Peter; notably Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.  They considered an equality and unity of Bishops wherein each Bishop in the church in each city sat in 'Peter's chair":  Whomever sat in the 'chair' of the See in Rome held authority only over the Church in Rome rather than everywhere and whomever confessed Peter's confession of "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was, by virtue of that confession, both 'rock' and 'key holder'.
There is one God, one faith, one baptism, and one spirit and if there is any connecting principle flowing from one Church leader to the next it is the very same principle which unites all those who are born again by the Grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.


What are the most prominent christologies in all of Christendom? There is no doubt that the most prominently accepted view of the nature of Christ is Trinitarianism.  I'm curious to know what other christologies would make the "top ten" of the most prominent christologies in all of Christendom.
What do the majority of people believe who reject the Trinity?

If someone could put together a list of the top ten, supported by estimated number of adherents and affiliations that would be superb.

Approximately 97% of Christians belong to Trinitarian denominations, so it's a reasonable view that there are no other prominent Christologies at all. However let's ignore that argument, and consider the most prominent ones after excluding Trinitarianism.

Most of them are associated with specific denominations. For example the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own distinctive Christologies, and both have around 15 million adherents. Oneness Pentecostals account for another 15 million or so. After that the numbers drop sharply, with Unitarians and Christadelpians probably having fewer than a million adherents each.


Abraham's bosom and Praying to Abraham I have discovered recently that some Christians believe Abraham's bosom is an literal place.

For those who have this view, was Abraham believed to be the ruler of this place? And was it perfectly acceptable to pray to Abraham as evidenced in Luke 16:27?

I cannot answer for those who might think "the bosom of Abraham" is literal because I believe the condition of those who have died is spiritual, not physical and, therefore, not literal. Many Christians appreciate that Jesus used the strongest words possible in Luke chapter 16 to describe things that are beyond our understanding this side of glory, in the state after physical death. He used adjectives like 'fire' and 'torment' or 'bliss' and 'comforted', with 'chasm' between the two places of torment and bliss. When it comes to Luke chapter 16, where Jesus spoke about the  beggar Lazarus dying then finding  himself in bliss in "Abraham's bosom" [or, side] we ought to know that we have entered another realm that is unknowable to us, except by divine revelation.

This revelation Jesus gave was in response to religious zealots who loved money. They despised Jesus for warning them that we cannot serve God and Mammon. This is significant for the account of Lazarus and the rich man in the after-life. The rich man found himself in torments. It wasn't that being rich, in itself, brought him the torments of hell any more than being poor brought Lazarus the joys of being besides Abraham. It was disregarding the suffering of the poor at his gate that was the rich man's problem, which he chose to ignore, until it was too late. Jesus was warning us all about that.

"Was Abraham believed to be the ruler of this place?" you ask. Back in the day, when Jesus spoke, we can discover what religious Jews thought about that. There were two Jewish rabbinical schools that believed in "Abraham's bosom" as a 'place' where good Jews who had died awaited in spirit form for the future Day of Resurrection when their departed spirits would be 'clothed' with resurrection bodies, for judgment before God. They believed that 'bad' Jews would be in torments in hell, awaiting that Day of Resurrection, and judgement. These were the schools of Shammai and Hillel, in existence before Jesus appeared on earth and for some time after. Jesus knew this, and spoke accordingly.

"The Life And Times of Jesus The Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim (1971) Appendix XIX, On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament" (see vol. II Book V ch. vi):

  "... For the views held at the time of Christ, whatever they were,
  must have been those which the hearers of Christ entertained; and
  whatever those views, Christ did not, at least directly, contradict
  or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them... the first
  Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that
  of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. The former arranged
  all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are
  'immediately written and sealed to Gehenna'; and an intermediate
  class, 'who go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,'... The
  careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in
  Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai...

  "Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the
  view of the School of Hillel... In regard to sinners of Israel and of
  the Gentiles it teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna
  for twelve months, after which their bodies and souls are burnt up and
  scattered as dust under the feet of the righteous; but it
  significantly excepts from this number certain classes of
  transgressors 'who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages
  of ages.'...But since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented
  the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it
  follows that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the
  days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified... The
  doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the
  Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era." (1)

This is confirmed in "Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" as in "The Works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston, 1980, page 637:

  "Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous
  are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is... a
  subterraneous region... angels are appointed as guardians to [souls]
  who distribute to them temporary punishments."(2)

Then it goes on to describe another part called "the Bosom of Abraham" with a chaos, deep and large, fixed between it and the place of darkness. Souls are in either one part, or the other, awaiting the resurrection of all men from the dead.

Thus, when we read what Jesus said about what happened to the rich man who died, and to Lazarus (the poor beggar), it all makes perfect sense. Jesus was speaking to their beliefs about punishment after physical death, or to bliss in the Bosom of Abraham! Jesus did not say those beliefs were wrong. He went right along with them and taught his listeners the gravity of loving money and the need to believe God's word.

This is not about Abraham being 'ruler' of the place, nor about prayer to him, for he speaks of no longer being on Earth, in the flesh. The rich man speaks to Abraham as is done in another realm, a spiritual realm. Jesus is conveying a revelation about something we can have no knowledge of apart from divine revelation. Jesus uses words we know to teach us about something we have no knowledge of. We have to go beyond mere words to be taught by the Master about what awaits us - either a 'holding place' for those who will enter into the joy of their Master, or a place of torment for those who will never know the joy of the Master - Jesus. If we do not focus on Jesus as the Son of God who died to deliver repentant sinners from the torments of hell, we will miss the point, and miss the bliss of entering into the joy of the Master, the risen Christ.

(1)http://www.ccel.org/ccel/e

http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Josephus%27%20Discourse%20to%20the%20Greeks%20Concerning%20Hades


How is the George Lamsa translation of the Bible (from Aramaic) viewed by Evangelical scholars? According to Why does Iglesia ni Cristo use the Lamsa Bible?, at least one Christian church thinks Acts 20:28 in the Lamsa translation supports thier non-trinitarian viewpoint. Many translations use "church of God" and suggest God's blood purchased our salvation, whereas the Lamsa translation says [emphasis mine]:

  Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.

What do evangelical leaders and scholars think about the Lamsa translation? Does it appear to contradict their doctrines?

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the English Standard Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (ESV): “to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”  Refers to the blood of Christ... the blood of God’s own Son, which would be a legitimate alternative reading of the Greek.  Some Greek manuscripts read “the church of the Lord.”

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New International Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (NIV): “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”  Literally “the blood of his own one” referring to his own Son.  Many manuscripts say the church of the Lord.

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New Living Translation say this:

Acts 20:28 (NLT): “Feed and shepherd God’s flock – his church purchased with his own blood.”  Or “with the blood of his own [Son]”

I have no idea whether those Bible scholars and translators would wish to be labelled as Evangelical Christians, though.  However, they are in agreement that there is nothing wrong in translating the Greek into “the blood of God’s own Son” or similar.
One Bible translation (the New World Translation) renders Acts 20:28 as “the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”  The Bible translators are not named but it is highly unlikely that they would wish to be identified as either Evangelical Protestants or Evangelical Catholics.  They are, however, unanimously anti-Trinitarian.
As for Iglesia ni Cristo, they believe that Jesus was created by God the Father and is not a deity and the Holy Spirit is the power of God and also not a deity, being sent by God the Father and Jesus Christ to guide God's people.  However, the manner in which that one verse in the Bible is translated neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, although it is understandable why anti-Trinitarians prefer the Lamsa translation of Acts 20:28.
EDIT: As requested, here are the Study Bibles I quote from:
English Standard Version (2008) page 13-17 for names of scholars/translators
New Living Translation (2008) page A29-30 for names of scholars/translators
New International Version(2000) page xx for names of scholars/translators
New World Translation (2006) No scholars/translators are named


Did John Calvin believe that the grandchildren of a believer are entitled to infant baptism? In Calvinism, the children of believers are considered "members of the covenant" and as a sign of that covenant, they are baptized as infants.

Practically speaking, this means that if at least one parent is a Christian and member of the church, then the child may be baptized.  But sometimes, people other than the parents might be considered "responsible" for that child's spiritual well-being, and thus a child could be baptized even if neither parent is a Christian/church member.

Sometimes those other people are grandparents, but the issue quickly gets tricky – for example, what about the cases of household slaves or foster children?  Usually, the litmus test is that the "sponsors" of the child must be in a situation to train and nurture the child.

However, I recently saw the claim that John Calvin believed that descendants of Christians, even several generations removed, were entitled to the sign of the covenant, without the requirement of a Christian "sponsor."  So, for example, the grandchild of a deceased member of the church would be entitled to infant baptism, even if no one else in the family is a Christian.

My initial reaction to this claim was skepticism, but on reflection I'm wondering if this would fit well within Calvin's system.  Did Calvin believe that descendants of church members, even to two or more generations, were entitled to infant baptism, even without a Christian guardian?  Where in his works does he argue for or against such a position?

John Knox, the leader of the Reformation in Scotland,  wrote to Calvin in 1559,  asking for his view on whether it be lawful to admit to the Sacrament of Baptism the children of idolators and excommunicated persons before their parents have testified their repentance.

In reply Calvin said he had consulted colleagues in Geneva and all were agreed.

  God's promise comprehends not only the offspring of every believer in the first line of descent, but extends to thousands of generations.

This is  a reference to the promise in the Second Commandment.

He went on:

  To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the Church,  though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates.

and

  wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust, when God, 300 years ago or more, has thought them worthy of His adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace.

However he did insist suitable sponsors (godparents rather than guardians) were needed.

  We confess it is indispensible for them to have sponsors.

Dr Jules Bonnet, in the nineteenth century published a collection of Calvin's letters translated. This letter is letter 549.

Letters of John Calvin


Why are Mormon Temples Ceremonies kept secret from non-Mormons? Even though only priests were allowed into the Temple in the Old Testament, all of the ceremonies and furnishings were described in great detail in the Old Testament for anyone, Jew or Gentile alike, to read and understand.

However the details of Mormon Temple Ceremonies are kept secret, and, in fact, non-Mormons are prevented from even entering Mormon Temples. The LDS website says

  You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple. (lds.org)

What is the reason for keep the ceremonies secret? Why are they considered 'too sacred'?

There seems to be two questions here.  First, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret, seeing as how Old Testament temple ceremonies were not?"

The simple answer is that the Old Testament temples operated under the Law of Moses and were administered by the Levitical priesthood, whereas modern temples operate under the Law of the Gospel and are administered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which necessarily means that things will work differently.  (See Hebrews chapter 7, particularly verse 12.)  Therefore, it's unreasonable to expect that the Old Testament temple ceremonies--many of which had to do with matters of blood sacrifice and similar rituals of the Law of Moses, which were fulfilled in Christ--should be perpetuated in modern temples.

Second, the slightly broader question, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret at all?"

The answer to this is somewhat subtle, and some people will probably find it unsatisfying, but the Church does not hold them to be secret at all, but rather it considers them sacred.

The value of a secret is exclusivity.  The less people who know about a secret, the greater the power it confers upon those who know it.  Throughout history, people have been known to go to great lengths to keep secrets, up to and including committing murder to prevent (or retaliate for) the sharing of a secret.

By contrast, the Latter-Day Saints do not see the temple ceremonies as something secret and exclusive at all, but rather as something that is highly sacred.  The church has spent a great deal of effort, time and money in both building temples throughout the world, and sending missionaries to teach people the Gospel, with the explicit intended goal of bringing them to the temple.  This is the exact opposite of a secret: it is something that the Latter-Day Saints put a great deal of work into sharing as broadly as possible!

But because these matters are viewed as sacred and highly spiritual, that sharing is done within strict boundaries: only people with a certain degree of spiritual preparation are allowed to participate.  This is quite in harmony with Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper:

  1 Corinthians 11:27-29

  27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the
  Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

  28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
  and drink of that cup.

  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
  damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

As the purpose of the temple ceremonies is to help people along the path to salvation, and not to help condemn them, the church requires that certain standards of preparation and worthiness be met before participating in these sacred ceremonies.


Did Jesus visit the temple before the wise men came? I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head.

The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39...

Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6).

Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people.

Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7).

So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age.

However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus.

Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?).

Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them?

And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) OR they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..?

So, my question:

Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is:

According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

Here is my attempt to harmonize the accounts of Matthew 2 and Luke 2, This assumes a literal retelling of the story. (Luke as a careful writer has been vindicated again and again by archaeology.)

  NAZARETH (above Samaria to the north) to BETHLEHEM

Luke 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

  BETHLEHEM (just south of Jerusalem)

Luke 2:7 Jesus born in a manger

Luke 2:8-20 Jesus still in manger when shepherds see them

Luke 2:21 Eight days for circumcision

  JERUSALEM

Luke 2:22-24 Now when the days of her purification [33 days] according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. [They gave gifts as poor people would, so the Magi had not given them riches at this time.]

Luke 2:25-35 Simeon sees Jesus.

Luke 2:36-38 Anna sees Jesus.

  JERUSALEM to NAZARETH

Luke 2:39 So when they [Joseph and Mary] had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

  Approx. 1-year GAP. Then NAZARETH to JERUSALEM to HILL COUNTRY(?)

Luke 2:41 We learn from this passage that they went to JERUSALEM every year for the Passover. So we see them no longer in Nazareth, but in Jerusalem. Perhaps they turned aside to Bethlehem at that point to visit relatives and family. In Luke 1:39, Mary visits Elizabeth in the "hill country of Judah," which, according to this map, includes Bethlehem. After all, this is Joseph and Mary’s home town where their families could still be living, so it’s not inconceivable that they would go see them or stay with them during the Passover. Bethlehem is just below Jerusalem -- see the map above.

Matthew 2:1-8 “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,” [The Magi visit Jerusalem and Herod, where they are told by the scribes that the ruler is to come out of Bethlehem.]

Matthew 2:9-11 “When they [Magi] heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” [This was not their home in Nazareth, but “the house” (Matt. 2:11), perhaps a family’s or relative’s home. This Magi’s visit was perhaps the first Passover after Luke’s account, for Herod said to kill children 2 years old and under.]

Matthew 2:12 The Magi return home without telling Herod.

  BETHLEHEM to EGYPT

Matthew 2:13-15 “Now when they [Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Matthew 2:16 babies killed in Bethlehem. [The slaughter may not have happened until several months after the Magi and family had left, when Herod finally wises up and causes those children 2 years old and under to be killed. It took time for the Magi to journey here from the east, so maybe they told Herod that the Ruler was born when they first saw the star? Adding that time and the time the Magi departed would come to about 2 years by Herod’s reckoning. If this is so, then the Magi may have come here at the first Passover after Luke’s account.]

Matthew 2:19 Herod dies. [The family survived in Egypt on the gifts of the Magi.]

  EGYPT to NAZARETH

Matthew 2:22-23 Joseph is told to return, for Herod was dead. “…. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, ….” Now we are back to Nazareth.


What is the Testament of Hezekiah? I know it exists, but I can't locate it I am currently reading up on of apocryphal and pseudopigagraphical literature, and I see on a list that the Testament of Hezekiah is enumerated as one of them. However, I cannot locate a source or any short blurb on its date, origin, and content? Do any of you know? Thanks!

After a bit more research, I found reference to the "Testament of Hezekiah." It appears, that it a component of the larger pseudegraphical text, "Ascension of Isaiah." Perhaps why I couldn't find info at first, is that it is smack in the middle of a Jewish text. "The Testament of Hezekiah" is believed to be redacted into the text by later Christians.

Theories for its dates from 1st to 3rd centuries CE. It may actually be a compilation of multiple texts that were composed at different times and later compiled together.

The overarching content of the "Ascension of Isaiah" concerns the martyrdom of Isaiah, wherein Isaiah warns King Hezekiah that Manessah (the next in line) will not continue to reign in righteousness. Once Isaiah's prophecy proves to be true, Isaiah and other prophets flee to the deserts for safety. Unfortunately, they are encountered by a false prophet, Belkira (inspired by the infaous demon, Beliar), and charges Isaiah of treason, and Manessah condemns Isaiah to death, which Belkira carries out. (Later, Isaiah ascends into the 7 heavens, etc). This is the "Ascension of Isaiah." These are the sections believed to have Jewish origins (with the parallels of the demon Beliar also being present in the Book of Jubilees, fragments found in Qumran of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. The other proposed Jewish parallel is the method of Isaiah's death -- being sawed in half -- as accounted for in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds).

As for "The Testament of Hezekiah" (and back to the question at hand) -- it is projected into the middle of the "Ascension of Isaiah." This is the blatantly Christian portion of the text as it concerns a vision of Christ's "future" coming, the downfall of the Christian church due to corruption, the dreadful reign of Beliar (the demon), and ultimately the Second Coming. Some scholars think there are clear codes pointing to the persecution of the Church by the Roman emperor, Nero (which early Christians thought was the antichrist).

Anyway, I'm sorry for not finding this info before I posted the question. For those interested (if any) in this Jewish-Christian hybrid text, the information was located in James H. Charlesworth's "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" (Hendrickson Publishers, 2010).


Are there any sects of Christianity that still practice animal sacrifice? Are there any modern sects who originate from or claim affiliation with Christianity that still practice any sacrificial rites? If so, who are they and what specifically is their understanding of the nature of sin and forgiveness in relation to sacrifice?

I think I understand the general position of orthodox Christianity on the issue. I'm specifically looking for anybody who both claims the label "Christian" and acknowledges Christ as the Messiah, but still sees a need for ongoing animal sacrifice -- and why.

According to this article, there are local churches in Israel that still practice animal sacrifice.  It says:

Although slaughter for sacrifice contradicts a basic belief of Christianity, it is practiced by local Catholics, Greek Orthodox and other Christians at the ruined Byzantine church of Saint George in the village of Taybeh, 20 miles from Jerusalem. "Around 70 to 80 lambs are sacrificed here each year," said the Roman Catholic priest, Father Raed. Similar sacrifices are also made in the towns of Lodd, Jaffa, al-Khadar and elsewhere in the Holy Land.

Unlike traditional sacrifices, the meat is then distributed to the poor rather than to the priests, but the purpose is very similiar.
From the article:

"The sheep are always facing east when a sharp knife goes through their necks," Khoury explained. "Sometimes sacrifices are offered as gratitude for the birth of a healthy child, help with a relation surviving a deadly illness or a major operation, or thanks for survival from a car accident."
During the killing, prayers are offered in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost and accompanied by entreaties to al-Khader (Saint George) to act as an intermediary.
Qleibo, although a Muslim himself, insists that Christian blood-sacrifice cannot be explained away as a Muslim influence: "Blood sacrifice was an important part of the ancient Canaanite religion and numerous pagan cults. Semitic blood sacrifices have persisted."

All this said, it seems to be a peculiar practice of a place, not so much as a denomination.  Syncretism is apparently not the sole province of the Samaritans...


What's a list of theological terms to describe how one approaches the bible? I know people who believe the bible is true and authoritative, and insist you get best meaning from King James Version. At the same time, I've heard a pastor quoted as saying, "You can trust the bible, just not the one you've got," implying it was true and authoritative, just not necessarily in the English versions we carry around.  Further still I've met theological-liberals who say things like "Bible contains the Word of God." I'm not interested in debating the merits of any approach.

What are the terms used to describe the main schools of thought? I'm particularly interested in the flavors of "literalism", if there are any objectively-describable differences in camps here.

Interesting question, and worth a measured response, either here or in Stack Exchange Biblical Hermeneutics Beta.  By the way, I assume you are not after a mere list of different schools of thought vis a vis literalism but an explanation of what distinguishes one "faction" of literalists from another faction of literalists.

According to Dr. Bob Thiel, Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote c. 180 A.D., was one of the earliest proponents of the "literal" approach to biblical interpretation. Thiel, by the way, is known online as COGwriter.com, and he is a widely published spokesperson for the Continuing Church of God (with which I am in no way affiliated).  Thiel contrasts Theophilus's approach with the "allegorical" approach to biblical interpretation espoused by Origin of Alexandria, who borrowed extensively from  Clement of Alexandria.  These two "schools of thought" or "camps" are in some ways the antithesis of each other.

On the one hand, Theophilus, a literalist, would explain the concept of God's anger in very human terms, albeit not in a sinful sense.  Call it righteous indignation or an aspect of the wrath of God, but God's anger is literal, according to Theophilus, and its expression is real.

On the other hand, Origin, an allegorist, would insist the human concept of anger is not worthy of God but must be explained not in anthropomorphic terms but in figurative and allegorical terms.  In other words, there needs to be a "deeper" meaning than simple, human anger.  The literalist camp would insist that while there may in fact be an occasional deeper meaning in a biblical text, the "default setting" (my term, copyright 2013!) for reading the Bible should be literal, not figurative.

Since the third century in the Common Era, variations of the two camps (not to mention other, competing camps) have come and gone.  I would not be surprised if by google-ing various key terms in this regard, one might come up with a scholarly work which traces the evolution--or devolution, as the case may be--of the literal method.  In fact, I will do that search myself and edit this answer if I find any sources worth quoting.

Additionally, I would not be surprised, either, if someone has written a tome on the various ways in which Christian literalists have gone about the art of interpretation since the first century A.D.  Come to think of it, the "higher critics," so called, may in fact be literalists in some ways.  What sets them apart from other literalists, however, is their tendency to explain away or discount such things as miracles and even the inspiration of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, they may believe there was an actual Moses, for example, but not that Moses spoke to a rock and out gushed water.

The same reasoning applies to the crossing of the Red Sea.  Higher critics lean toward believing the sea was a Sea of Reeds, and that there was nothing particularly miraculous in the way the Israelites crossed that shallow body of water that could not be explained through natural phenomena.

I hope someone takes up the challenge I've issued and answers the OP's question based on knowledge which has already be acquired in this regard before I've had time to prepare a more thorough answer than my partial answer.


Why does a clever Satan fight with God even though he knows he will lose? There was war in heaven (oh yes there was) and Satan lost his place in heaven when he was defeated. What biblical reason is there to show Satan's reasoning behind fighting with God (despite the fact that he knows he will lose)?

Since the Philosophy tag was raised. This is what I think.

Satan and the demons fear God. They are not going to fight against God. If anything Satan is out to get us. So is the antichrist who will trick us to fight against Christ Jesus.

He was cast out of Heaven. Luke 10:18 NET

  So he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Satan did not even put up a fight. Here, he was simply thrown out. Ezekiel 28:17

  Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted
  your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I
  made a spectacle of you before kings

Satan is a liar, John 8:44 NET

  for he is a liar and the father of lies

At the battle of Armageddon, Satan will hide as we will be tricked to fight Christ Jesus.
I think this is how we will be tricked:

  "There's nothing more reliable than a man whose loyalty can be bought
  for hard cash" Boris Balkan, The Ninth Gate