Is Mormonism a Mystery Religion? Given some of the comments in this question, I feel compelled to ask: "Does Mormonism constitute a present-day example of a mystery religion?" I'm interested in both insider and outsider perspectives.

The article states that Christianity itself, particularly as it originally existed in the days of the early Church, meets the definition of a mystery religion, and that this was noted and remarked upon by one of the great early apologists, Justin Martyr.  And if the definition is that "participation is reserved to initiates," then Judaism meets the definition as well: Gentiles who had not converted could not take part in many of its sacred rituals, particularly ones that involved the Temple.  The Temple had an outer area known as the court of the Gentiles where outsiders could come, but beyond that, they were not welcome.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the restoration of original Christianity, so it's not surprising to see such features as part of its theology.  Participation in sacred temple ordinances is "reserved to initiates," as the article describes it, and certain matters regarding temple ceremonies are not to be discussed outside of the temple.

However, there is an important distinction to understand:  to Latter-Day Saints, these matters are not secret; they are sacred.  I explained the difference in this question: the value of a secret is in exclusivity, whereas Latter-Day Saints actively invite and work to persuade all to come to the temple, but only once certain standards of preparedness, understanding, and spiritual maturity have been met.


How much of the text of the Gospel of John can be substantiated by early copies and quotes from early Church Fathers? It's interesting that a person will claim passages were added at a later date without considering the textual evidence.
A fragment of the Gospel of John dates in the first half of the second century.  We have complete copies of John in the fourth century codices.  My concern is answering arguments for parts of John being later additions before the fourth century.  An example of evidence, Irenaeus of Lyons, in the late second century, quotes parts of the prolegomena that some question it being part of the original Gospel.

But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Irenaeus - Against Heresies book 1
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." ... For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." ... For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Irenaeus - Against Heresies book 3
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

I'm not concerned with John 7:53–8:11, which is not in the earliest manuscripts.  The rest of the Gospel is consistent in language and subject matter.  It does appear that John added chapter 21 as a postscript.  Has someone already compiled this information for the Gospel of John?

According to this data, 96.7% of the Gospel of John is quoted pre Nicea 325. It is the most complete quoted New Testament book and only less than 29 Verses are not quoted.
The document also has a section covering the Manuscripts. Manuscripts pre-dating Nicea covers 98.6% of John.
I've not verified the whole document myself (that would rightly mentioned take a lifetime career) but I find the Excel document extremely useful to find Patristic Quotes and its been very accurate.
Also, consider looking into early translations. The Peshitta is the earliest and this website has been a wonderful resource for me to find references. It seems to be the ongoing research of Dukhrana published online as they work on the various ancient manuscripts in Aramaic. I have not found anything near like this for the Old Latin.


What is the biblical basis against the personhood of the Holy Spirit? Someone already asked a question seeking the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but it seems that no one has asked a question yet seeking the opposite. Thus, in order to fill this gap, I ask:
What is the biblical basis against the personhood of the Holy Spirit?

The case against a Holy Spirit person or entity that IS NOT the Father is clearly outlined in scripture. IOW, the HS IS the Spirit of the Father according to the scriptures and not a separate entity of a 3 part God.
Basically, according to Jesus and the Apostles, he hardly even exists if all the verses speaking of the Father and His relationship with Jesus and us is concerned.
No one gives greetings or sends messages, or prays to the HS.
No instruction is given about 'him'.
No mandate for his place within the so-called 'Godhead'.
To understand otherwise is to read into the text that which is not plainly provided.
In Luke, Jesus rules out everyone - humans, spirits, devils from his statement - 'only the Father knows'. If there was a Holy Spirit entity he would have to be included in this intimate knowing.

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Luke 10:22

Furthermore, the disciples have left us with their wisdom on this matter which shows us what the holy spirit is.

the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say Luke 12:12

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you. Matt 10:20

We have many examples of 'the spirit of...' Christ, truth, grace, wisdom, Zerubbabel, Father, etc. None of these is a 'separate' entity. God gives name to everything and everyone - even changing names to suit new circumstances or roles. The HS has no name. Just as the 'spirit of Christ' or 'wisdom' has no special name either as it is the essence of who they are.
Let's not be misled by the 'him' and 'he' liberally applied by our interpretive translators, where 'which' and 'it' could/should have been applied.
If there is a Holy Spirit entity, Jesus or the apostles never taught this. It wasn’t included in the creeds until centuries after the church started, further confirming that it wasn’t a teaching of the apostles.
While we can certainly read this aspect of God into our theology from a few select verses, what would be the point if it is not a truth God has clearly provided for Jesus’ followers?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lots of times Isaiah 63 gets quoted, 'and they grieved His Holy Spirit'
Perfect example of proof-texting! We could equally say, based on what the apostles have told us, (the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of the Father) He was grieved in His heart! How one justifies a 'person' from this verse is astounding!
Read on same verse.

Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.

Who is HE? Not the HS, but God - He fought, He became their enemy. His Spirit was grieved.
The biblical basis against the 'person' of HS is abundant. Anything suggesting otherwise is based on very poor exegesis like the Isaiah 63 proof-texting approach, ignoring context and drawing faulty presumptions.
In short, the biblical basis against a Holy Spirit 'person' is

to read what is provided.
to not draw poor conclusions from a text in isolation.
to not add to the text that which it does not naturally supply.

Excerpt from Why Doesn't the Holy Spirit know who Jesus is?


What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions? What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions?

I'm certainly not aware of a "Christmas" tree appearing in the Christmas story, so I'm curious when it was associated with the holiday.

The origin of the Christmas tree is very well documented elsewhere, including Wikipedia.

There are some Christians that disapprove of the use of a Christmas tree (one reason documented also at wikipedia, and further discussed (with rebuttal) here).

There are some groups that do not use Christmas trees, for various reasons.

Some Amish do not use Christmas trees (although others do)
Although not considered "Christian" by many, Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas at all
Many other Evangelical groups reject some or all Christmas celebrations, on the grounds that it was originally a pagan holiday (Larger discussion on this matter here).


What is the opinion of the LDS Church in regards to unbaptized people's taking communion? In 2011, I visited a LDS church. On my visit, I noticed that bread and water were served. At the time, I merely thought they were some sort of snack for the congregation, and I gladly took a tiny cup of water and a piece of bread. The people didn't seem to care about my taking communion. Does that mean it is okay?

The breaking, blessing, and partaking of the bread and water constitutes the sacrament ordinance in the LDS Church. It's how one renews their baptismal covenants. If one has not made those covenants, it is of no matter. (Parents often encourage their children to take the sacrament to prepare them to one day renew their covenants and to teach them the value of the ordinance. Others discourage it because it has special meaning.)

Either way, the sacrament is not withheld from individuals while being passed, whether they are visitors or not. It is perfectly acceptable for visitors in an LDS congregation to partake of the sacrament:

  Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it.

(from Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 20.4.1)


What is baptism by Desire? Again, this is one I've never heard of.  Inspired by Peter Turner's comment.

  If you had a plane full of people's consent to be baptized if they
  miraculously survived the flight but they died anyway then water
  baptism wouldn't be necessary, it would be baptism by desire.

I'd never heard of "baptism by desire".  What is it, who believes in it, and how does it relate to "traditional" baptism as far as legitimacy/effectiveness goes?  (Is it considered inferior or equivalent to traditional baptism?)  I assume that "by desire" means that no ordained minister/priest/pastor is involved, hence the question of legitimacy/effectiveness.

It's not just that no priest is involved -- after all, anyone with the correct intention is able to perform a valid baptism, though it is forbidden, except in cases of emergency, to just "do it yourself". It's that no other persons at all are involved. Just the person undergoing a baptism by desire, and God. (Not to imply that God is one person; He is three Persons, one Being).
The Baltimore Catechism addresses this question directly:

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Further:

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

So it is as effective as baptism by water. God is always effective.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives further details:

1259 For catechumens [catechumens are those who are in the process of joining the Church] who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Note that in the above, "will of God" means will of God, not the will of a god. 1260 is of special relevance to those who are wondering whether, for example, people in uncontacted tribes can be saved. Short answer: yes, they absolutely can.


What is the connection between St. Michael and people who work in grocery stores? When examining the wikipedia page on St. Michael it says:

Michael the Archangel is the patron saint of grocers, mariners,
paratroopers, police officers, and military personnel.

Mariners, military, and cops I can understand. But how did St. Michael come to be known as the patron for grocery store workers?

This is most likely an adoption, due to the fact that in Medieval times, soldiers (police if you like) would protect the market places where grocers would sell their goods.


Does any church still provide a pension for widows? In 1 Timothy there is a passage that talks about widows receiving a pension from the church:

1 Timothy 5:9-16

  A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty
  years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for
  good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown
  hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she
  has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to
  every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for
  when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to
  get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set
  aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be
  idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but
  also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to
  mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear
  children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;
  15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 16 If any woman
  who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the
  church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are
  widows indeed

Is there a historical record of this practice in the church and do any modern churches still have a similar practice?

Let's start by remembering that we are living in very different times from those of the New Testament. 1 Timothy is a letter written by one pastor to another, and not all of it is intended as commandments to the entire church in all places down the millenia. Some of it is Paul giving Timothy good advice for the present circumstances (Sometimes we can deduce universal principles from that, but that's a different matter). So asking whether any church is  ministering to widows in the way specified should be a trivial and unimportant matter, and doesn't in any way make a statement about the church. You should also consider that nothing in 1 Timothy says that widows under the age of sixty shouldn't receive help in other ways if they need it. Let's also remember that providing financial assistance to the elderly is now the responsibility of the state, at least in the Western world.
Having said that, many churches provide financial assistance specifically aimed at Widows. Here are a couple of examples:

The Widows Program of the Rafiki Foundation gives African widows and impoverished women of the church a means of employment and artistic expression
The orphan and the widow are often forgotten, marginalized and in need. God longs to meet their needs through us, His Church. Africa Revolution is being used by God, not only to help meet these needs, but also to equip and empower local churches and community members to better serve this population with best practice solutions.
Widow Connection - Helping Widows in time of need.
The mission of the Women Of Grace Widows’ Fund is to enact and make real an ongoing structure to alleviate the extreme poverty faced by widows in Malawi by providing funding to meet basic food, shelter, and safety needs, while creating opportunities and resources that enable and empower widows to establish their own self-sufficiency and independence, regardless of religious affiliation.

That's just from the first two pages of Google.


In 1 Samuel 20:30.. Is Saul saying: "SON of a *****?"? After reading those verses from 1 sam 20:1-30, it seems like Saul is actually Screaming: You "SON of a *****?"?... but the Bible writers or translators seems to polish that verse with seemingly "Polite" words... by saying things like son of a rebellious woman etc...

According to BibleHub.com's "Hebrew Text Analysis Page", the Hebrew text is

  בֶּֽן־נַעֲוַ֖תהַמַּרְדּ֑וּתהֲל֣וֹאיָדַ֗עְתִּי

and a literal translation is something along the lines of

  son of the perverse rebellious [woman]

Thus it appears that this is what Saul in fact did say, although he may have meant, as the New Living Translation has it,

  You son of a whore!

or as the New English Translation (NET Bible) says,

  You stupid traitor!

The Douay-Rheims Bible seems to be getting at the same thing the NLT wants to say, though in 16th-century language:

  Thou son of a woman that is the ravisher of a man!

But though Saul may have meant this, there's no indication that he actually said it.


How man created by God gets along with anthropology? For example even before homo sapiens existed neanderthals or homo heidelbergensis that used tools, had closes etc.
How christianity explain their existence? Is Adam was some kind of homo erectus that than evolved into homo sapiens? Or we had monkeys that almost evolved into humans and then God kill them all and created Adam and Eve?

God's word is unchanging; anthropology is not.
This article in the Smithsonian Magazine (not known as a hotbed of creationism) says that scientists are rethinking ideas about Naenderthals:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/
Neanderthals were fully human. The differences between Neanderthals and modern humans are no greater than the differences between the most different current groups of humans.


Is Deism in Christianity possible? If so, what does it look like? In short, Deism is more or less that God exists but has not really an interaction with humanity. He just gave a set of natural laws by which he governs people.

Now, Jesus came to Earth as the incarnated God ascended from above, so by this there seems to be a direct interaction between God and human kind. Does this mean that Deism isn't really possible in Christianity even though in the 18th Century it developed within Christian countries?

Was this perhaps more about God and not so much with Jesus involved?

If it can exist how was/is this argued?

I'm not sure is any denomination has a particular view on this, but if necessary the vision of the RCC would be welcome.

The answer is no, Deism cannot be reconciled with Christianity; they are 2 very different theological philosophies.

Deism is a metaphysical philosophy which acknowledges the existence of a single God who has served and continues to serve as the indispensable foundation for existence or perhaps as the Origin of Existence.  The Deistic God is outside the realm of physical and specifically, human activity and is therefore impersonal, as well as lacking the characteristics of personification.  (Even referring to the Deistic God, as "He", is actually incorrect and instead, the use of the word, "It", is more consistent with its true definition and meaning).  I would argue that Deism probably has a much closer intellectual connection with Aristotle's, "Metaphysics" than with the Christian God-(or Theism in general).

(Note: I am a member of the History Stack Exchange).


2 Samuel 12, David's son, and justice David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan
  said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not
  die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the
  Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his
  house.

I've been trying to wrap my head around this part of scripture for a while now. How can a just God kill an innocent child for the sins of David? Most of the explanations I've been getting online have been incredibly unsatisfying, ranging from "It was an act of mercy for the child to die, he would have had a terrible life!" to "It's OK for God to punish innocents for the sins of the guilty." All of these feel inadequate.

To me, the one thing that sticks out to me is that Nathan says that God "[P]ut away David's sin", which seems to contradict the child's death being a punishment for sin.  Is there an actual satisfying answer to this problem?

The problem here is your perspective. It appears that you don't allow G-d to do as he pleases in that David's punishment was the death of the child. The child isn't punished. G-d does not guarantee anyone any term of life. Life belongs to G-d and he can do with it whatever he chooses. As an innocent, the child is guaranteed eternal life.

So G-d is not unjust because the child wasn't treated unjustly.

G-d doesn't punish the child for the sin of the parent but there is a principle called collateral damage. If I take LSD and damage my genes, then my child will suffer for my action. In this case David choose evil and David's punishment was the death of the child. This is not unjust on G-d's part.

Secondly forgiveness of sin doesn't alleviate the consequence of sin. If I rob a bank and repent the judge isn't going to commute my sentence.

I hope this helps.


What is the norm for celebrating First Friday/Saturday Novena Masses on Holy Days of Obligation? When First Fridays or First Saturdays fall on Solemnities (like All Saints is on Friday in 2019), do people usually punt the devotions to the next month or pack them into the same day?

What is the norm for celebrating First Friday/Saturday Novena Masses on Holy Days of Obligation?

These devotions you speak of are not technically novenas and as such the Mass of the day fulfills the need to complete the requirements of these same devotions.

First of all, we must understand what are the First Friday Devotions, the First Saturday Devotions and holy days of obligation (Solemnities):

  First Friday Devotion

  The First Friday Devotions are a set of Catholic devotions to especially recognize the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and through it offer reparations for sins. In the visions of Christ reported by Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, several promises were made to those people who practiced the First Fridays Devotions, one of which included final perseverance.

  The devotion consists of several practices that are performed on the first Fridays of nine consecutive months. On these days, a person is to attend Mass and receive Communion. If the need arises, in order to receive Communion in a state of grace, a person should also make use of the Sacrament of Penance before attending Mass. In many Catholic communities the practice of the Holy Hour of meditation during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament during the First Fridays is encouraged. - Wikipedia

  First Saturdays Devotion

  The First Saturdays Devotion (also called the Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary) is a Catholic devotion which, according to Sister Lúcia of Fátima, was requested by the Virgin Mary in an apparition at Pontevedra, Spain, in December 1925. This devotion has been approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

  When Sister Lúcia experienced the Pontevedra apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she heard her promise to grant great graces, especially at the hour of death, in particular the salvation of the soul, for the believer who for Five Consecutive First Saturdays of Month (5 Saturdays in 5 months) receives Holy Communion and practices the following exercises as an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven:

  Sacramental confession

  The confession can take place within eight days before or even after the Holy Communion is received, but the Holy Communion shall be received with dignity, in a state of Grace, keeping in mind that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist (Transubstantiation). The Intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary may be kept to oneself; it is not necessary to notify the confessor priest.

  To receive Holy Communion.

  The Holy Communion has to be received within the 24 hours of the first Saturday of the Month. Attendance to Holy Mass is optional. Receiving Holy Communion as part of this devotion must be consciously intended as an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart. The devotee need not tell anyone else, but keep it in mind. To avoid omitting the Intention every Saturday, the General Intention for the devotion of the Act of Reparation can be mentally or outspokenly stated before starting the First Saturdays (or in between).

  If a person has a valid reason not to attend Mass (Masses not available on Saturdays, difficult mobilization, other major event), the devotee may consult a priest about receiving Communion privately or on another day with the intention of making this Communion as part of the devotion.

  A 5-Decade Rosary is recited.

  The Rosary must also be recited with the intention of making reparation.

  A 15-Minute Meditation is made on the Mysteries of the Rosary.

  This Meditation should also be done in an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Rosary Meditations can be recited on all 15 of the mysteries or fewer but must last for 15 minutes. This meditation is in addition (i.e. separated) to the recitation of the Rosary. It can be prayed alone or in a group and with or without the aid of sacred scripture.

  The activities of the Five First Saturdays devotions are different from similar devotions on other days in that all should be done with the specific intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives. - Wikipedia

  Holy day of obligation

  In the Catholic Church, holy days of obligation (also called holydays, holidays, or days of obligation) are days on which the faithful are expected to attend Mass, and engage in rest from work and recreation, according to the Third Commandment.

  The expectation is attached to the holy day, even if transferred, as sometimes happens in the Roman Rite, to another date because of coinciding with a higher-ranking celebration. However, in some countries a dispensation is granted in such circumstances.

  The holy days of obligation for Latin Catholics are indicated in canon 1246 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

    Can. 1246. §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

    §2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

  Non-Sunday holy days of obligation all have the rank of solemnity. Accordingly, if in Ordinary Time one of them falls on a Sunday, the Sunday celebration gives way to it; but the Sundays of Advent, Lent and Eastertide take precedence over all solemnities, which are then transferred to another day (but the precept is not). Very occasionally, the Feast of the Sacred Heart may fall on Ss. Peter and Paul's feast day, in which case it takes precedence over the Solemnity of Ss. Peter and Paul; the precept then applies to the feast of the Sacred Heart. - Wikipedia

Seeing that the First (9) Fridays Devotion and the First (5) Saturdays Devotion are exactly that a devotion. If one chooses to perform these devotions in order to obtain the promises attached to them one would have to fulfill the obligation that is mentioned in how to perform the devotion, whether or not a particular First Friday or a First Saturday coincides with a Solemnity or not. This is up to the individual to complete the tasks, practices and prayers regardless of what day it falls on.

A holy day of obligation makes no difference in performance of these devotions. One must do nine (9) consecutive First Fridays or Five (5) First Saturdays in a row. If one misses one day, one would have to start all over again.


How have major theological traditions handled "continuing to indulge in sin when saved?" There is interest in the question of what happens to someone who continues to indulge in a specific sinful habit while (apparently, originally) saved. What happens to this person?

So far, I've asked a Truth Question, and to make matters worse,  there's probably stridently different schools of thought on this not only between denominations but within congregations, if you worship in a real one.  Nonetheless,  can anyone provide an overview of the major theological schools of thought on this topic?

A good answer might be along the lines of Puritans saying, "No sinner remains in fellowship"; Luther's Theology of the Cross saying, "Only those who realize they are a slave to sin cling to Jesus like the truly saved"; and Total Depravity saying, "You're hell-bound: go make trouble."   I'm hoping that someone qualified to answer this would be familiar with at least this variety of opinion and succinctly pick out three to six major schools and explain them briefly. A poor answer would be your denomination vs. the devil. The identifiable schools of thought could all be popes or all Tent Revivalists—it doesn't matter.

You've asked how various groups of Christians handle the problem of the believer who continues sinning in a particular way (presumably without even a show of repentence?) I can give you maybe three schools of thought on this.

The "Carnal Christian" view: this view takes the doctrine of the preservation of the saints to a different level (one not intended by most adherents). The idea is that if God saves me, I'll be saved no matter what I do, so I might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I'll die and go to heaven. This idea is related to the Lordship controversy. Anyone in the Lordship controversy who argued that one can have Jesus Christ as Savior but not as Lord of their life, would adhere to this Carnal Christian view.
The Arminian view: this view argues that one can lose one's salvation by sinning a lot. I don't think any Arminian would say that you could lose your salvation by sinning just once, but certainly, if you remain in sin for a long time, you would lose your salvation. Arminians include many, but certainly not all, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, and no doubt others.
The Reformed view: people who are in this sort of sin are one of two kinds of people: the elect or the non-elect (impossible for humans to determine - only God knows). If the deeply sinning person is elect, then the Holy Spirit will work in that person's life to lessen the power of sin, since God's purpose is not just to remove the guilt of sin, but the power of it as well. If the person is non-elect, then his "salvation" was illusory in the first place. Since we don't know who is elect and who isn't, it is not possible to distinguish between the two cases. However, the approach is the same for either: assume that a true believer will improve in their holiness and start sinning less. Those holding to the Reformed view would include many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed (Continental), and Calvinist Baptists.


Where did the notion that Adam and Eve ate an APPLE come from? Contrary to popular belief no mention of the fruit being an apple can be found in the Book of Genesis.

Jewish commentaries recorded in the Midrash Rabbah speculate that the tree might have been a species of wheat, or corn, or that the fruit might have been grapes or figs.

And yet, the idea that it was an apple is widely accepted.

Was it due to Classical influences (The golden apples in the Garden of the Hesperides)?
Is it a legacy from the Latin 'malum' (apple/evil)?
Or is there another reason?

Are there any other theories that have been put forward as to what the fruit might have been?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word apple has, until recently, always meant simply "fruit" in English. This was certainly the case at the time of the earliest English Bible translations in the 1600s.

  In Middle English and as late as 17c., it was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts (e.g. Old English fingeræppla "dates," literally "finger-apples;" Middle English appel of paradis "banana," c.1400). Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis.

(emphasis added)


Do the Gnostic Gospels exist online anywhere in original Coptic? I have seem images and pdfs of the Gnostic Gospels online, but nothing in plain text (copy-pastable) Coptic. Does such a thing exist? I would like to read the original Coptic scripts in full, and make notes and snippets from the original Coptic.

Some of these texts are PDFs, but the text is selectable. For example:

http://gospel-thomas.net/gtbypage_112702.pdf

To render the Coptic text, you will need to install a Coptic font:

https://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/


What is the origin of the cope? I've heard that the cope originated as a raincoat the priests would wear in outdoor processions, and it was never dropped as part of priestly vestments per the mode of the Church in general, not to drop traditional things.

However, when looking at some photos of some paintings in the (one of, if not the) oldest (discovered) Synagogue—Dura Europos—, I was shocked to find what looked like  a Cope (worn by priests, but especially part of the Papal regalia) on the Highpriest Aaron.

I was shocked because it looks identical to a papal cope, worn here for instance by Pope Benedict XVI (minus the Papal Tiara, but complete with fabulous shoes):

Clearly its being the 'same thing' as what Aaron is wearing (a distinctly liturgical piece of clothing) is incompatible with its having been a raincoat which was 'never dropped.' But it could of course have been eventually changed to represent symbolically that the Pope is a kind of 'highpriest' among the other bishops (and bishops a kind of 'highpriest' over the priests, I guess you could say—a picture St. Clement draws in the first century), but I find it unlikely that they would have known this is what vestments Aaron wore would look like, as the language of the Bible isn't exactly unambiguous, and seems like more of a summary of the fact that God commanded holy vestments to be a thing. And some kind of 'divine recapiulation'/coincidence is more or less out of the question.

And it goes back quite a long timr, it isn't something purely recent due to 'scholarly research.'

I found this painting from just over 500 years ago, for instance. If it basically hasn't changed since then, the changes must be very, very gradual, meaning we can interpolate a much earlier date, then, for its origin.

Question

Just what is the origin of the 'highpriestly-looking' cope as used by the Church in her sacred vestments, and when did it first come into use? Does any source mention its development or what is the first mention of its use, for example?

What are the origins of the cope?

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice expose about the origins of the cope used in Catholic liturgical celebrations.

  Cope

  Known in Latin as pluviale or cappa), a vestment which may most conveniently be described as a long liturgical mantle, open in front and fastened at the breast with a band or clasp. As existing monuments show, whether we look at pictorial representations or at the copes of early date which still survive, there has been remarkably little change in the character of the vestment from the earliest ages. The most conspicuous external modification which the cope has undergone, during the past thousand years and more, lies in a certain divergence in the shape of the hood, a feature which, after all, is not in any way an essential part of the vestment. In some early examples we find only a triangular hood, which was no doubt intended to of practical utility in covering the head in processions, etc. But with the lapse of time the hood has into a mere ornamental appendage, and it is quite commonly represented by a sort of shield of embroidery, artificially stiffened and sometimes adorned with a fringe, the whole being fastened by buttons or by some other device to the back of the below the broad orphrey which usually forms an upper border to the whole. The fact that in many early chasubles, as depicted in the drawings of the eighth and ninth centuries, we see clear traces of a primitive hood, thus bearing out the explicit statement upon the point of Isidore of Seville, strongly confirms the view that in their origin cope and chasuble were identical, the chasuble being only a cope with its edges sewn together.

  History

  The earliest mention of a cappa seems to meet us in Gregory of Tours, and in the "Miracula" of St. Furseus where it seems to mean a cloak with a hood. So from a letter written in 787 by Theodemar, Abbot of Monte Cassino, in answer to a question of Charlemagne about the dress of the monk (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist. Carol., II, 512) we learn that what in Gaul was styled cuculla (cowl) was known to the Cassinese monks as cappa. Moreover the word occurs more than once in Alcuin's correspondence, apparently as denoting a garment for everyday wear. When Alcuin twice observes about a casula which was sent him, that he meant to wear it always at Mass, we may probably infer that such garments at this date were not distinctively liturgical owing to anything in their material or construction, but that they were set aside for the use of the altar at the choice of the owner, who might equally well have used them as part of his ordinary attire. In the case of the chasuble the process of liturgical specialization, if we may so call it, was completed at a comparatively early date, and before the end of the ninth century the maker of a casula probably knew quite well in most cases whether he intended his handiwork for a Mass vestment or for an everyday outer garment. But in the case of a cappa, or cope, this period of specialization seems to have been delayed until much later. The two hundred capp or cope, which we read in a Saint-Riquier inventory in the year 801, a number increased to 377 by the year 831, were, we believe, mere cloaks, for the most part of rude material and destined for common wear. It may be that their use in choir was believed to add to the decorum and solemnity of the Divine Office, especially in the winter season. In 831 one of the Saint-Riquier copes is specially mentioned as being of chestnut colour and embroidered with gold. This, no doubt, implies use by a dignitary, but it does not prove that it was as yet regarded as a sacred vestment. In fact, if we follow the conclusions of Mr. Edmund Bishop (Dublin Review, Jan., 1897), who was the first to sift the evidence thoroughly, it was not until the twelfth century that the cope, made of rich material, was in general use in the ceremonies of the Church, at which time it had come to be regarded as the special vestment of cantors. Still, an ornamental cope was even then considered a vestment that might be used by any member of the clergy from the highest to the lowest, in fact even by one who was only about to be tonsured. Amongst monks it was the practice to vest the whole community, except, of course, the celebrant and the sacred ministers, in copes at high Mass on the greatest festivals, whereas on feasts of somewhat lower grade, the community were usually vested in albs. In this movement the Netherlands, France, and Germany had taken the lead, as we learn from extant inventories. For example, already in 870, in the Abbey of Saint Trond we find "thirty-three precious copes of silk" as against only twelve chasubles, and it was clearly the Cluny practice in the latter part of the tenth century to vest all the monks in copes during high Mass on the great feasts, though in England the regulations of St. Dunstan and St. Æthelwold show no signs of any such observance. The custom spread to the secular canons of such cathedrals as Rouen, and cantors nearly everywhere used copes of silk as their own peculiar adornment in the exercise of their functions.

  Meanwhile the old cappa nigra, or cappa choralis, a choir cope of black stuff, open or partly open in front, and commonly provided with a hood, still continued in use. It was worn at Divine Office by the clergy of cathedral and collegiate churches and also by many religious, as, for example, it is retained by the Dominicans during the winter months down to the present day. (See CLERICAL COSTUME.) No doubt the "copes" of the friars, to which we find so many references in the Wycliffite literature and in the writings of Chaucer and Langland, designate their open mantles, which were, we may say, part of their full dress, though not always black in colour. On the other hand we may note that the cappa clausa, or close cope, was simply a cope or cape sewn up in front for common outdoor use. "The wearing of this", says Mr. Bishop, (loc. cit., p. 24), "instead of the 'cappa scissa', the same cope not sewn up, is again and again enjoined on the clergy by synods and statutes during the late Middle Ages." The cappa magna, now worn according to Roman usage by cardinals, bishops, and certain specially privileged prelates on occasions of ceremony, is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but is only a glorified cappa choralis, or choir cope. Its colour for cardinals is ordinarily red, and for bishops violet. It is ample in volume and provided with a long train and a disproportionately large hood, the lining of which last, ermine in winter and silk in summer, is made to show like a tippet across the breast. Further we must note the papal mantum, which differs little from an ordinary cope except that it is red in colour and somewhat longer. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the immantatio, or bestowal of the mantum on the newly elected pope, was regarded as specially symbolical of investiture with papal authority. "Investio te de-papatu romano ut pr sis urbi et orbi" were the words used in conferring it (I invest thee with the Roman papacy, that thou rule over the city and the world).

Basically, the cope as a liturgical vestment is employed in processions, benediction, assistant priests at pontifical Masses and other many other liturgical functions However it is not worn  by priest who are celebrating the Eucharist at Mass (consecration).

  The cope is a vestment for processions worn by all ranks of the clergy when assisting at a liturgical function, but it is never worn by the priest and his sacred ministers in celebrating the Mass. At a Pontifical High Mass the cope was worn by the "assistant priest," a priest who assists the bishop who is the actual celebrant. In the Sarum Rite, the Cope was also prescribed for members of the choir at various times.

  It is now the vestment assigned to the celebrant, whether priest or bishop, for almost all functions except the Mass when the celebrant wears the chasuble instead. The cope is used, for example, in processions, in the greater blessings and consecrations, at the solemnly celebrated Liturgy of the Hours, in giving Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and the celebration of other sacraments outside of Mass. For most of these the celebrant may instead wear simply cassock and surplice or alb, both with the stole, for simpler celebrations. The chasuble, which is properly only worn for Mass, may also be worn during processions and other ceremonies that occur directly before or after Mass, such as the absolutions and burial of the dead, at the Asperges before Mass, and at the blessing and imposition of the ashes on Ash Wednesday, to avoid the need for the celebrant to change vestments.

The Cæremoniale Episcoporum envisages its use by a bishop if presiding at but not celebrating Mass, for the Liturgy of the Hours, for processions, at the special ceremonies on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Lenten gatherings modelled on the "stations" in Rome, Palm Sunday and Corpus Christi. The bishop may use a cope when celebrating outside of Mass the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, matrimony, penance in solemn form, ordination (if not concelebrating), and anointing of the sick. The list in the index of the Cæremoniale Episcoporum continues with several more cases. - Cope (Wikipedia)

One website describes the origins as such:

  The Cope and Veil. The cope... was originally worn only in outdoor processions, and was considered merely as a rain-cloak, as is shown by its Latin name, pluviale, a protection against rain. The cape attached to it, which now has no use whatever, is a reminder of the large hood formerly used to cover the head in stormy weather. Our English name, cope, is from the Latin "cappa," a cape. - Vestments

But as the one can see in the Catholic Encyclopedia this is a serious simplification of the liturgical vestment.

Any similarities in the above medieval painting displaying a cope as is used by Catholic clergy is merely an artists interpretation of what he thought to be worn by Jewish priests. In fact, the opposite is true. Jewish priests did not wear copes in their liturgy at all. There is no liturgical cope mentioned in Sacred Scriptures for Jewish priests.

  The Torah provides for specific vestments to be worn by the priests when they are ministering in the Tabernacle: "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for dignity and for beauty" (Exodus 28:2). These garments are described in detail in Exodus 28, Exodus 39 and Leviticus 8. The high priest wore eight holy garments (bigdei kodesh). Of these, four were of the same type worn by all priests, and four were unique to the Kohen Gadol.

  Those vestments which were common to all priests, were:

  Priestly undergarments (Hebrew michnasayim) (breeches): linen pants reaching from the waist to the knees "to cover their nakedness" (Exodus 28:42)
  Priestly tunic (Hebrew ketonet) (tunic): made of pure linen, covering the entire body from the neck to the feet, with sleeves reaching to the wrists. That of the high priest was embroidered (Exodus 28:39); those of the priests were plain (Exodus 28:40).
  Priestly sash (Hebrew avnet) (sash): that of the high priest was of fine linen with "embroidered work" in blue and purple and scarlet (Exodus 28:39, 39:29); those worn by the priests were of white, twined linen.
  Priestly turban (Hebrew mitznefet): that of the high priest was much larger than that of the priests and wound so that it formed a broad, flat-topped turban; that for priests was wound so that it formed a cone-shaped turban, called a migbahat.

  The vestments that were unique to the high priest were:

  Priestly robe (me'il) ("robe of the ephod"): a sleeveless, blue robe, the lower hem of which was fringed with small golden bells alternating with pomegranate-shaped tassels in blue, purple, and scarlet—tekhelet, argaman, tolaat shani.
  Ephod: a richly embroidered vest or apron with two onyx engraved gemstones on the shoulders, on which were engraved the names of the tribes of Israel
  Priestly breastplate (Hebrew hoshen): with twelve gems, each engraved with the name of one of the tribes; a pouch in which he probably carried the Urim and Thummim. It was fastened to the Ephod
  On the front of the turban was a golden plate inscribed with the words: "Holiness unto YHWH" attached to the mitznefet.

  High Priest of Israel (Vestments)

The only similarities that that exist in medieval art and the association between Catholic and Jewish vestments is in the eyes of the particular artist. It goes no further.

  The medieval liturgist might have said, "our clergy wear vestments because they were handed down to us from the clothing worn by the priests of the Old Testament, who in turn wore them by the express command of God in the law of Moses." This is a tall tale or at least a mistake because ancient Jewish and Christian vestments have only superficial similarities; and by the time the Church made use of vestments (after the end of Roman persecutions and the rise of Constantine, say) Jews and Christians had near zero cultural exchange. Indeed, it was more likely that a Christian would change his habits solely not appear like a Jew, and vice versa.

  If we could synthesize all these strains of thought into a greater idea, then, I'd say that a priest wears vestments to: 1.) conform to the rule of the Church (liturgical law), 2.) symbolically erase his own identity by taking up the cloak of Christ, and 3.) emphasize continuity between the religion of the Old Testament and of the New. Each reason may seem questionable on its own, but together, they refute the idea held by cynical nonbelievers that vestments are worn for priests to vainly adorn themselves in rich fabric sewn by the blood, sweat, and tears of a peasant class kept in ignorant darkness by their ecclesiastic overlords. No, friends, it's just the opposite: the priest wears vestments as an act of obedience, to conform himself to the will of God. In theory, at least. This is true for the medieval priest just as much as for the modern one. - A look into the medieval parish church's vestry: on vestments


Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing? At Exodus 12:11 we see the Lord instructing the Israel on how to go about the first Passover :

"  This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly. It is the passover of the Lord."

We also see Jesus celebrating with His disciples,the Passover  which has since come to be called  the Last Supper:

"So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal." (Mk 14:16)

Now, it is reasonable for one to assume that the Jews had their Passover meal from year to year, in the same manner as their forefathers had had before their flight out of Egypt , that is,  standing up ! But we are made to believe, at least through images, that Jesus sat down with his disciples to have the Passover meal. My question is : Is there any denomiation which believes that Jesus had his Last Supper standing ?

Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?
The Short answer is no
Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus and his disciples were reclined while eatig at the Last Supper.

Institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26–29)
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the1 covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
Institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:14–23)
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the1 covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Institution of the Lord's Supper (Mark 14:22–25)
14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it1 until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.2 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes pas it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.

The ancients often reclined while eating their meals. Most of us sit around the meal table and even Leonardo Da Vinci's famous picture The Last Supper shows this. But the people of ancient times ate differently.

The Last Supper

Why Were They Reclining During the Last Supper?
While reading  John 13,  it had me wondering why the word “reclining” was used during the last supper when Jesus talked about His upcoming betrayal.  The same word appears in the books of Matthew (26:20),  Mark (14:17),  and Luke (22:14– “reclined”).

During the ancient times, people (especially the Romans and the Greeks), ate while in a reclining position rather than sitting down.  There may be a table in the middle and couches were set up around it.

Reclining in a Roman triclinium
The above image is an example of how the Romans relined at mealtime in ancient Rome.

Most of us who live now think of the Last Supper in terms that are familiar to us. In our imagination Jesus and his apostles sit around a square table on chairs. Jesus is a the center and his apostles arrayed around him. The famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci is uppermost in most modern minds when thinking of the Last Supper.
But the real Last Supper was different in many significant ways. Some of the following I am about it present is still a matter of debate other aspects of it are undisputed.
1.Jesus and the Apostles did not sit on chairs at a table. Rather they reclined on ground or on mats and pillows, leaning on their left elbow (either forward of back) and eating with their right hand. Their legs were stretched out behind them. (See picture at left, click to get a bigger size) This was the typical fashion for eating in the ancient world. That they reclined to eat is made plain in the Gospel of Mark: While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me(Mk 14:18).  It also explains some things that seem strange to us moderns. First of all why did John lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him a question? (Jn 13:25;  21:20) This would be strange and physically awkward in a modern upright table setting. But reclining on one’s side on a mat meant you had to lean back to talk to the person next to you. There is also another strange scene where Jesus is reclining to eat in the home of a Pharisee and and a woman begins to anoint his feet (Luke 7:38).  In a modern upright table setting this would mean she’s have to be under the table. Strange indeed! But in the ancient setting the posture was such that one’s feet were behind and thus the woman could approach Jesus from behind and begin to anoint his feet without his prior knowledge.
2.The Place of honor in modern western settings  at a typical long rectangular table is either at the center or at one end. Everyone is seated upright and facing in to the center and can generally see all the others well. However, in the ancient meal setting the table was  “U” shaped either as a half circle or with 90 degree arms. Instead of sitting at the center of the table (as in DaVinci’s painting above) the host or honored guest sat at the far left corner. Further, everyone sat on one side on the outside of the table allowing the inside of the table to open for servers.  The picture to the right is from a very early mosaic in Ravenna, probably made well before the 5th Century. At this early time the artists still had access to the memory of the actual practices at the time of Jesus and thus depicts the Last Supper as it was more likely arranged. Notice that Jesus is at the head of the left corner and his disciples are arrayed in a sloping ark behind and sloping to his left. This was the usual setting for the ancient meal and especially something as formal as a passover meal.
3.It would seem that the place of second honor was at the other end of the U shaped table on the right corner. This would help explain why Peter is not at Jesus’ immediate right or left and has to motion to John across the room to lean back and ask Jesus a question (Jn:13:24-25). Since Peter would like have had the other place of honor it makes sense that he would be across the room and unable to ask Jesus himself.
Thus the whole setting of the Last Supper was rather a different setting that most modern people imagine. Leaning on elbows and eating with one hand would all be very awkward to us. But I suppose they’d think what we do strange as well. The question of the arrangement also factors into modern discussions of liturgical orientation and Mass facing the the people vs. Mass facing away from the congregation toward God. I’m sure that this will emerge in the discussion but it is clear from the Ravenna Mosaic that Mass facing east toward God and not toward the people did not offend ancient notions of the Mass as the “Lord’s Supper.” To the ancients formal meals featured the honored guest at one end angled away a bit  from most of the other guests. - The Seating Plan at the Last Supper

Reclining at table seems to be the preferred interpretation as how Jesus and his disciples ate. Their seating places (reclining arrangements) are less sure.


What O.T passages do premillenialists believe to be about the Millennial Kingdom? What passages do premilleialists, that is, those who believe the "1000 year reign of Christ to be a literal event to occur only after the second coming of Christ, find in the Old testament that they believe to be prophesying about the Millennial Kingdom?

I am Word of Faith we are pretribulational dispensational premillennialism. We believe Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 43-48 are all used to describe the millennium kingdom of Christ on the earth. Zechariah 14 describes the return of Christ with His saints from a governmental standpoint. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5 holds the idea the millennial reign is being discussed throughout this chapter. Ezekiel 43-48 largely focuses on the Glory of God returning to Israel and the return of their priesthood during the millennial reign. Its difficult to point to one reliable source which states this but many independent sources say as much on google and I know it is what is taught by Billye Brim in her School of Eschatology on Ezekiel which is no longer available for purchase. While Rev 20 is on the same topic since it is describing a different aspect of the return of Christ it doesn't directly correlate to either chapters from the Old Testament.

Zec 14:5  And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5

and the Lord my God shall come; the Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly God, and the God of his people; and who will appear to be so at his second coming, which is here meant, by raising the dead, gathering all nations before him, and separating them; by bringing to light all secret and hidden things; judging the whole world, and executing the sentence on them; and particularly by taking his own people to himself:
and all the saints with thee: the Targum, and the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read, "with him"; meaning either the holy angels; so Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Ben Melech; who will attend him partly for the glory of his majesty, and partly for terror to the wicked, and also for service; or rather glorified saints, the spirits of just men made perfect, whom Christ will bring with him to be united to their bodies, which will now be raised, and to be with him in the new heavens and new earth, which will now be formed, and to be presented to him, and dwell with him, during the thousand years.

and

Eze 44:3  It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.


Was Jesus finite or infinite? (human or God?) I've always heard it said that Jesus was "completely human" and "completely God".

How could he be both human (finite by very nature) and God (infinite by very nature)?

It's one of those difficult things to comprehend. In fact, I think we may never be able to fully understand it. Jesus is God and has existed eternally as God (John 1:1, 18) but took on the additional nature of humanity during the incarnation. He fully possesses each nature, much in a sense that each member of the Trinity is fully God. His natures are also distinct much as the members of the Trinity are distinct. For instance, Jesus as man is not omniscient (Luke 2:52, Mark 13:32). Jesus as God cannot experience death. His two natures are completely distinct yet fully and completely unified in His single person.


How do Cessationists explain extreme manifestations of shaking and trembling observed in religious settings? In some religious settings, e.g. Pentecostal and Charismatic gatherings, there are people who experience extreme cases of body shaking and trembling. There are many illustrative live recordings of these phenomena freely available on the web. Check out my related question on Psychology.SE where I list several examples and even first-hand testimonies. Some of these examples are quite dramatic. For instance, some people cry, shake dramatically and fall to the ground as if overwhelmed by something the preacher "transmitted" onto them (like here, here, here). Others do not need a preacher around them to trigger the experience and claim that the source of the shaking is God's overwhelming presence (like here). Some people perform very strange shaking movements allegedly because a demon was being cast out of them (like here, here). Some people tremble dramatically as if being electrocuted (like here, here, here, here). Here you have examples of a child and an elderly shaking and fainting. Finally, here you have a first-hand account of a demonic deliverance recently uploaded to YouTube where the individual testifies about extreme involuntary and uncontrollable shaking. These are just a few examples I'm highlighting for illustrative purposes, but feel free to find more on the Psychology.SE question I mentioned before or by searching on your own.
Also, the reality of this phenomenon is even acknowledged by peer-reviewed papers such as this one and this one. Both papers explicitly mention shaking and trembling as a manifestation experienced by some people in certain spiritual experiences. However, neither of them provides a scientific theory that explains what is causing the shaking and trembling in the first place. In other words, they acknowledge the phenomenon, but don't provide a scientific explanation for it. In fact, my question on Psychology.SE has been open for a good while and has not received answers yet providing a scientific explanation (which is what you would expect with any kind of supernatural phenomena - if it is indeed supernatural).
So, in the face of these undeniable manifestations, I'm interested in the official position taken by Cessationists. I foresee two possible positions a Cessationist could take (both leading to tricky dilemmas that I would like to know how Cessationists address):

The phenomenon has a natural explanation: if this is your position, then please provide a scientific explanation of the phenomenon, otherwise you would just be stating a speculative opinion.

The phenomenon is supernaturally caused by demons: if this is the case, that would mean that demons are performing counterfeit manifestations today. But if demons are performing counterfeit manifestations today, wouldn't that mean that the Holy Spirit is producing genuine manifestations today also? Because if there are counterfeit manifestations, that means there is a "real thing" being counterfeited. But that would contradict the Cessationist assumption that "real things" ceased 2000 years ago and there is no "real thing" for today, correct? Moreover, believing that demonic possessions are for today would logically entail believing that casting out of demons is also for today, but wouldn't this be another contradiction with Cessationism?

So, how do Cessationists explain these evidently undeniable manifestations of extreme shaking and trembling in religious settings?

Cessationists do not say that demonic possession has ceased.

(Some events referred to by OP are claimed to be a manifestation of demonic possession.)

Cessationists say that the gifts of tongues and miracles have ceased.

Cessationists do not deny that the gifts of tongues and miracles can be mimicked.

Cessationists do not deny that demonic possession can be mimicked.

Cessationists do not deny that exorcism of demons can be mimicked.

The OP links to anecdotal evidence of what could be mimickry or deliberate misrepresentaton.

Cessationism is a Protestant doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. Reformers such as John Calvin originated this view. More recent development has tended to focus on other spiritual gifts too, owing to the advent of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement that have popularised a radical continuationism – the position that the spiritual gifts are meant for all Christians in every age.

Wikipedia - Cessationism and Continuationism

Many will say to me, in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not ... in thy name, cast out devils ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

{Matthew 7:22,23 KJV]


How does Catholicism interpret Deuteronomy 13:1-11 According to this answer provided by Geremia, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

...before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity

In Deuteronomy 13, Moses tells these simple people:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHVH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after YHVH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from YHVH your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which YHVH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from YHVH thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

How does Catholicism interpret the verses which say the simple Jewish people were to kill any prophet that enticed them to worship gods they have not known, since they never knew god the son who is the second person of a triune god?

From the Haydock Commentary on Deut. 13:

  Ver. 9. Presently put him to death. Not by killing him by private authority, but by informing the magistrate, and proceeding by order of justice. (Challoner) (Worthington) --- Philo seems to assert the contrary. But he perhaps speaks of those who publicly endeavoured to lead the people astray. Presently is not in Hebrew. Other criminals were allowed twenty-four hours after condemnation. No delay was granted to false prophets. No excuse was admitted. If he had even been once acquitted, he might be examined again. --- Thy hand. The accuser or witness first threw a stone, after the wretch had been conducted out of the city, chap. xvii. 5., and Acts vii. 57.

Addressing "Whether Christ's slayers knew who He was?", St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 47 a. 5 c.):

  Among the Jews some were elders [maiores]*, and others of lesser degree [minores]*. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."

  But those of lesser degree—namely, the common folk—who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them (Acts 3:17): "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"—namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.

*translated as "the learned" and "the simple," respectively, in my quote of Summa Theologica II-II q. 2 a. 8


Why is it said that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews? I have heard it stated that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as, specifically, the King of the Jews, rather than the Messiah, the Incarnate Word, or anything else.

What is the basis for this assertion?

The Gospel of Matthew is written for a Jewish audience, especially Palestinian Jews who were at the time oppressed by the Romans. One of Matthew's main goals in his gospel was to prove that Jesus was the true Davidic Messiah--the king the Jews were expecting, who will deliver them from oppression.

Jewish scripture foretold that the Messiah will be like a Star out of Jacob and the Scepter that rises out of Israel in Numbers 24:17. He is the One who sits on David’s throne in Isaiah 9:7. He comes with the clouds of heaven to reign over a kingdom where all people, nations, and languages, will serve Him in Daniel 7:13-14. In His kingdom the nations will no longer lift up the sword against one another in Isaiah 2:4, and His reign, we’re promised, will have no end in Isaiah 9:6-7.

And hence Jesus Christ is presented as the “Son of David, the Son of Abraham” in Matthew 1:1 and the “King of the Jews” who wise men seek to worship in Matthew 2:2. Forty times He speaks of the kingdom of heaven and says that the day would come when He would return in the clouds to establish His kingdom on earth in Matthew 26:64.

Even Jesus is presented being asked directly, “Are you the King of the Jews?” to which He replies, “I am” in Matthew 27:11. This infuriated the religious leaders who demanded He be crucified. As He hung on the cross a sign was put over His head that read, “This Is Jesus, The King Of The Jews.”


How should we judge the trustworthiness of a given Bible translation? Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one.

See also: By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?

It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the "true" rendition of the text or meaning.

Since clearly not everyone that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, how are we to know which translations are reliable? Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know?

Cliche Christian answer: pray about it. I'm guessing that isn't the answer you're looking for though, so I will say "research."

For example, looking at Wikipedia you can see the New International Version "translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian." Also, "Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate."

Having a large team of international, inter-denominational scholars helps quite a bit to remove bias and helps to ensure an accurate translation. Then, using different discoveries gives further insight.

You can easily do this research (and more in depth research) for the other translations as well. I only used NIV as an example because it is what I see quoted most often. With so many scholars using so many different translations, it is usually pretty easy to find out when a translation is inaccurate.

If worried about bias, consider purchasing a parallel Bible so you can always compare two or three translations


How can we be with Christ when we die, if Christ has a glorified body and we won't until the resurrection? It is taught that when we die we who believe in Christ will be with him right away, but how can we be right away with Christ if he has a glorified physical body that we are supposed to receive only in the resurrection?

This question is aimed at those Protestants who reject both purgatory and soul sleep, while believing in an intermediate state.

Like God, we humans are spiritual beings. Unlike God, we are not just spirit; we are physical, corporeal bodies which are animated by spirit.

Imagine, if you will, a living body. Picture this body standing upright, but perfectly still. Every system in the body is functioning as it should: the heart is beating at 72 times a minute; the oxygen-carbon-dioxide exchange is going as it should as the lungs fill with air and oxygen from the air infuses the blood cells; the brain's synapses are firing and data of all sorts coming from both the inside of and outside the body are being processed properly--smells, sights, tastes, touches, sounds; blood pressure is 120 over 80; the exchange of nutrients and the elimination of waste products are fully functioning; in short, every system is performing optimally.

One thing is missing, however, and that is a spirit. Impossible, you say. Well, yes, but--but, if someone outside of that body I've just described were to pierce the heart of that living body in such a way that the heart stopped beating, the body would begin to die. Within minutes, it would experience brain death and the bodily systems I've just described would cease to function. The body would then begin the steady and inexorable process of decay and decomposition.

A materialist who happens to be observing the phenomenon I've just described would likely say, "Well, we've just witnessed the life/death cycle at work whereby the chemicals comprising the living body are simply rearranged and become part of other chemicals in the ongoing process of life and death--the Great Mandella (wheel of life)." In a playful mood, the materialist might even say, "The dearly departed is in the process of becoming  plant food for daisies, which in turn will decay and die, providing food for other life forms."

A Christian, on the other hand, would insist that life does not end with physical death, nor does a dead body, through decomposition, simply provide fertilizer to the soil. To the Christian, physical death ushers the believer into what might be called a segue to eternal life.

Early believers and the apostle Paul referred to deceased brothers and sisters in Christ as those who had fallen asleep in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:18, 20, 51). This "falling asleep" was not just a euphemism, but it was a way of describing the transition from the perishable, mortal, and physical body to the imperishable, immortal, and spiritual body.

Regardless of their eschatology, most Christians believe that that transition will be completed with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, when the dead in Christ shall rise with spiritual, heavenly bodies, like unto our Lord Jesus' body. Regardless of when that return for his own may be, we are assured that our Savior

  will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to himself (Philippians 3:21).

Or as the apostle John put it,

  See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:1-2 NASB Updated).

In the interim between a Christian’s death and subsequent resurrection, which will occur when Christ returns for his own, the Christian’s spirit lives on and is in some way “present with the Lord,” the “proof text” of which is 2 Corinthians 5:8, which follows, along with its context:

  Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lorde—for we walk by faith, not by sight—we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to the Lord (vv.6-9).

A somewhat parallel passage is in Paul’s letter to the Philippian believers,

  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better, yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake (1:21-24 NASB Updated, includes italics).

Besides the metaphor of sleep to describe the transition from death to resurrection, Paul also uses the metaphor of nakedness (or being unclothed) and the metaphor of a tent and a house (or dwelling):

  For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge (2 Corinthians 5:1-5 NASB Updated, includes italics).

When we combine the teaching in all the above passages, one thing becomes very clear: In death, every believer is alive and in the presence of the Lord. As for what “form” that presence will take, the Bible does not tell us. As the apostle John, whom I’ve quoted above, says,

  . . . it has not appeared as yet what we will be . . . (1 John 3:2, excerpt).

Nevertheless, we do know at least two things: 1) that to die is to be in Jesus’ presence, and 2) that to be in Jesus’ presence is to be a living spirit. That spirit may be disembodied (or unclothed), but since Christ through his resurrection is the first fruits of our resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 23) we are simply awaiting that day when our spirit and our glorified and sinless body will be united, which was God’s original design for his image bearers.

From that day forward we will never again be subject to death, which will be swallowed up in victory (Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:54), but we will live forever and "bear the image of the heavenly" Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:49), who loved us and gave himself for us.


What is the non-abstract definition of love according to the Bible? 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)

   4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

This is one of the main verses Christians refer to when talking about love. I think this verse is helpful in showing the practical forms love takes but does not define what love is. Now I know that the English word for love is not as descriptive as the Greek are but those definitions deal with how we love (agape - unconditional) or who we love (filio - brotherly love). I want a non-abstract definition of what love is, not how, who, or why, according to the Bible. I imagine that it should take a look at many verses since I don't know of just one that lays it out, but I would be glad to be shown wrong.

The most overlooked topic ever
Love is exactly what the Bible is trying to teach us in my opinion. Too often do we use a very abstract meaning when throwing this word around, almost to the point that it has been completely deflated of it's value.
God recognized this more than two thousand years ago, and thus, gave us this command.

1 John 3:18 NIV
Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions
and in truth.

Love for God is Obedience
The first and the most important commandment is that you Love God. But how can we do that with an abstract definition of the word? We cannot. God has told us to love with actions and in truth. The following commands are how we show God that we love Him.

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
1 John 5:3
In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands
are not burdensome,
2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

It's no wonder why John was considered the Apostle of Love. How does this definition fall into place with the gospel? Love is the capstone of it all.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any
value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through
love.

Some evidence of the power of Love in this context
Love/Obedience Purifies us

1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you
have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the
heart.

Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for

Proverbs 16:6
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of
the LORD evil is avoided.


Did the Herodian Temple have virgins? I have heard a story about Mary being the "Ever Virgin" and it started out with her parents presenting her at the temple as a virgin and she stayed a virgin for the rest of her life, even after giving birth to Christ. My question is did the Herodian Temple have virgins similar to temple dedicated to some of the Greek gods and goddesses?

The first part of The Gospel of James, an apocryphal Gospel "contains the story of the unique birth of Mary to Anna and her childhood and dedication to the temple". Similarly The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew confirms "Mary entering service as a temple virgin".
David Hughes gives a fascinating historical background on this subject where he says:

Mary "the Virgin", the only child and daughter of Heli (Luke 3:23) (Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies", 3:21) (Palestinian “Talmud”, Haggigah, Book 77, # 4) [possibly identified with Alexander "Helios", son of the Maccabee Queen Alexandra II by the first of her three husbands], who was a Davidic Dynasty prince, and his Levite wife, Anne, was born around 20/17BC.
In one of the apocryphal gospels Mary’s parents appear as an elderly couple, childless, whose prayers for a child are granted by God and made known by an angel who visits them. Heli and Anne, when Mary was age three, dedicated her to God’s service at the Temple in Jerusalem and at age nine or ten gave her into an order of temple virgins. . . .
Mary, according to apocryphal literature, was early orphaned at age ten and placed into an order of temple-virgins. There are different stories of this event: one, that, Mary, age ten, following the execution of her father, Heli, is taken from her mother, Anne, and, as a possible heiress, to prevent her from marrying or having any children to later rival King Herod or his heirs on the throne, was put by King Herod into an order of temple-virgins, whose members were made to take a vow of chastity, hence, the theory developed that Mary, under a vow, was “ever-virgin”. Her mother, Anne, came to visit her daughter on occasions, but appears to have died while Mary was still a young girl, around age twelve. Here, enters the story of her aunt Elizabeth and uncle Zacharias, Elizabeth‘s husband, a priest, who periodically served in the Temple at Jerusalem according to the schedule of his particular religious order [Abijah].
There is a story that says Mary remained in the temple until she was age 13 when the High-Priest, during a change of political climate, gave Mary into the custody of her aunt and uncle, Elizabeth and Zacharias, who took Mary into their home [either at Hebron or Juttah], and for a while were her guardians. She returned to Jerusalem with them on the occasions of her uncle's periodical temple-service. (bolding is added; bracketed material is in the original)


What is the English monarch's current relationship to the Church of England? I was recently on a tour in London, where one of the tourists asked the guide whether the Queen is still the head of the Church of England, to which the guide replied “Yes.”

However, Wikipedia claims that the head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, which position is currently held by Justin Welby.

So, what is the monarch’s official relationship to the Church of England, if there is any (other than simple parishioner)?

The Sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Head of the Church is Christ, not the Sovereign.

Although the Act of Supremacy of 1534 gave Henry VIII the style "supreme head of the Church of England", doubts were expressed about it and when the Act was reaffirmed by a similar Act in 1559 (having been repealed by Queen Mary I in 1555) the title "supreme governor" was used.

The sovereign appoints bishops who are elected by their electors1 and the Crown has rights in certain Church of England parishes. The Crown governs the Church of England through primary legislation passed either by Parliament or the Church's General Synod.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England (a title conferred by Pope Innocent VI and confirmed by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539). He is the senior bishop in the Church of England and by convention the "first among equals" within the Anglican Communion.

1 This isn't quite as democratic as it seems: the Crown has a big part to play in presenting the single candidate for the electors to vote on.


Isaiah 25:6 "On this mountain, the Lord of Heavenly Forces" Where does title "Lord of Heavenly Forces" come from?

The epithet "Lord of Heavenly Forces" translates yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt. The phrase consists of the name yhwh – the tetragrammaton –  in construct with the plural noun ṣĕbāʾôt, traditionally "hosts" (e.g. BDB צבא, section 4c beginning at the top of the second column).  According to one commentator:*

  The noun [ṣĕbāʾôt] has probably an abstract meaning such as "plentifulness, numberlessness" and is intensified by plural form. Hence, it refers to numerous entities such as heavenly bodies and earthly armies.

As to where it came from, the first occurrence in our Bibles-as-bound probably also reflects the origin of the term: 1 Sam 1:3:

  Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh....

The geographical origin of the term, then, is likely in the context of worship at Shiloh.†  However, the term is utilized most frequently in the Bible by the literary prophets, generally without any direct reference to Shiloh.

The spikes are in Zechariah, Malachi, and Isaiah, where the OP ran across it.‡ My personal favorite usages occur later in Isaiah, the emphatic and frequently interjected: yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt šĕmô ("YHWH of hosts [is] his name!"), e.g. 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5.

Although the OP only asks where it came from and not where it went later on, you may be interested to note another of my favorite uses:

  Dost ask who that may be?
  Christ Jesus, it is he;
  LORD Sabaoth, his name,
  From age to age the same,
  And he must win the battle

* David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 109-110.

† Even among those who hold that the Biblical origin of the term is the prophet Isaiah in the 8th C. (i.e. because a later date for 1 Sam is adopted), it appears to be mostly accepted that the connection to Shiloh is geographically correct. See Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “צְבָאוֹת,” TDOT, 12:230-232.

‡ Image via Accordance Bible software. Search term at bottom right.


Where is the Trinity in the Bible? Possible Duplicate:
  Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity

I've heard of the Trinity multiple times and under the basis of it.

He is one God, but with three personalities. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But nowhere do I ever see the word Trinity mentioned in the Bible. If I'm going to believe in a God, wouldn't his name or "nickname" at least be listed once (If that makes any sense)? God has many names listed throughout the Bible, but never is Trinity listed. If the Trinity is the basis of who my God and what he is, wouldn't that term of that basis be defined? It's not like the Bible doesn't describe Him. God is omnipotent, all-powerful, etc. God has been given many names and titles, and has been defined and described of who and what he is, but I've never seen the Trinity defined.

I also never even see anyone get baptized in the names of the father, son, and holy spirit. Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was never "corrected" by God.

Doing a little Google search, I see that the Trinity was introduced years ago by the Roman Catholic church to settle a dispute between the Christians and paganists (sp?). (Long story short).

I would have added more tags, but wasn't allowed to add new tags.

Jesus himself said to baptize that way:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,      (Matthew
  28:19 ESV)

The word "trinity" is not a name or nickname, merely an adjective that describes the fact that there are three distinct persons (not personalities) that together are God.