How would the four major eschatological views differ in their interpretation of Revelation 21:4? Under "Christian eschatology," Wikipedia lists four contrasting beliefs pertaining to apocalyptic literature (and prophecy?) in the Bible:

Preterism
Idealism
Historicism
Futurism

How would each of these camps interpret the following prediction, which comes on the heels of the "new heaven and new earth," the "new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God," and a promise that God "will dwell among them":

  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. -Revelation 21:4

What does this mean, and when did/will it happen? Please include a source to a teaching from each perspective on this verse if possible.

I really like this question because it is reasonable to ask and it phrased in a way that indicates it is a real question. First of all, the categories you listed are not applicable for Rev Chapters 1-3 and Rev 20-22. They are the categories that apply to Rev 4-20.  Secondly, Chapter 20 is split along these categories, which also do not really apply but may create a directional tendency just as the previous categories do:

•   Premillennial (a literal 1000 year binding of Satan after Christ returns before the new heaven and earth of Chapter 21)

•   Postmillennial Approach (a literal or symbolic period of greatness in the church expected just prior to the Lord's return)

•   Amillennial (basically the 1000 years is from the first coming to the second coming of Christ)

Therefore as we approach Chapter 21 we basically face it with these possible 10 positions in very simplified form:

Preterism/Postmillennial
Preterism/Amillennial
Idealism/Postmillennial
Idealism/Amillennial
Historicism/Premillennial
Historicism/Postmillennial
Historicism/Amillennial
Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation
Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation
Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)

Now what are we to think as we come to Chapter 21? Well, all these ten views must be multiplied into new variants as the new heavens and the new earth can be taken literally, or symbolically or combination therefore along any possible view before mentioned.  In virtually all (if not literally all) views this represents heaven after the final judgment where we live forever with Christ, but a more literal view will make that incomprehensible heavenly state a ‘heaven on a renewed physical earth’ and a more literal view might even literally say there is no ocean etc. as literally described. This means we now have these choices:

Preterism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival (see note) in the world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Preterism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at 'all times'. After the end of the world we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Preterism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival in world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Preterism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at all times. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Idealism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Idealism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Idealism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Idealism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Premillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Premillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured after some of these literal horrors will take place but before the worst parts. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. However the church will not be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. They must suffer with the world until the second coming. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.

Note 1: Mention of a great revival (above) in the future is usually thought of in connection with a conversion of many Jews and a subsequent falling away of many in the church just prior to the final judgment.

Note 2: Often these above positions can be blended a bit between them creating new variants.

I could spend months retrieving and cataloguing authors who have these views (some way more popular today than others) but this is not really practical simply from the fact that I have a day time job. Naturally I have over simplified each view due to the space I have allotted for the explanation and I have not complicated some of the futurist twists further buy the various roles that some feel Israel plays into the equation. Then again I am not even familiar with those details.


Did Jesus wear tsitsiyot? According to the NIV, Mathew 9:20-21:

  Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years
  came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. She said to
  herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

Some websites, such as this and that, claim that the "edge of his cloak" refers to a tzitzit, or traditional Jewish fringes. Is this a reasonable inference based on this passage?

The answer to your question 'Did Jesus wear tsitsiyot?' is, yes he did. We can know this by looking at a few things:

Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew born in first-century Israel (Matthew 1 & 2):

  Matthew 1:1-17 (ESV) — 1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ...

  Matthew 2:1 (ESV) — 2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and confirmed their authority:

  Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV) — 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

He lived a life obedience to Yahweh's law – the Torah:

  John 15:10 (ESV) — If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

In which, one of Yahweh's commands is for tzitzit be worn:

  Numbers 15:37-40 (ESV) — 37 The Lord said to Moses, 38 "Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. 39 And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. 40 So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Scripture defines sin as lawlessness (essentially Torah-lessness):

  1 John 3:4 (ESV) — 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

Scripture frequently confirms after his death that he was without sin, meaning he did not break God's law:

  2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) — 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

  Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) — 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

  1 Peter 2:22 (ESV) — 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

  1 John 3:5 (ESV) — 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Lastly, just as in the example @disciple noted (Matt. 23:5) – the same Greek word used to identify the edge of Jesus's garment (in which the woman touched and was healed), is the exact same Greek word (kraspedon, g2899) used to identify the Pharisees tzitzit (tassels).

Because of this, we can safely answer your question that: Yes this is a reasonable inference based on this passage.


When is earliest mention of the Church tradition that Jesus was born in a cave? The birth of Jesus as recounted by Luke says that:

  7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place
  for them in the inn. Cf. Luke 2:7.

How did it come to be known in Church Tradition that Jesus was born in a cave, and when is earliest mention of this tradition?

The earliest reference I can find is Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165 AD) who wrote in Dialog With Trypho:

  But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find
  a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave
  near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the
  Christ and placed Him in a manger. (1)


What is the biblical basis for why the sending of the Holy Spirit was necessary? Why couldn't the disciples begin following the great commission right after Jesus ascended into heaven? Why was the sending of the Holy Spirit necessary?

The disciples could have carried out the Great Commission immediately, but they had already received word from the Lord that they would receive the Holy Spirit prior to this. Jesus had commanded that they wait in Jerusalem until then.

  Act 1:4,6-8 KJV - And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,... When they therefore were come together, they asked of
  him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
  Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or
  the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall
  receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye
  shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and
  in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This passage and the Great Commission of Matthew 28 are invariably linked: They both involve going to all the world with an evangelistic mission. While Matthew doesn't record Jesus mentioning the Holy Spirit like this before his ascension, these additional words of Jesus from around the same time in Acts (after appearing to his disciples and before He ascends) makes the connection to the Commission clear. The apostles already had experience going out on their own and bringing the Message with power of the Holy Ghost (Mark 6:12-13), but they  knew to wait, or else Jesus wouldn't have given that timeline: The Holy Ghost comes upon you, You receive power, You will be My witnesses. This is why it was necessary that they wait before following the Great Commission. The second part of your question is why the Holy Spirit is necessary.

The Gospel's effectiveness doesn't come with persuasion, but with power.

  1Co 1:17-18 KJV - For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
  gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be
  made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that
  perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of
  God.

and again:

  1Co 2:4-6 KJV - And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing
  words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
  power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
  the power of God.

Without the power of the Holy Spirit blowing, there can be no conversion:

  Jhn 3:6-8 KJV - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
  which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto
  thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
  thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
  and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I suppose you could keep asking why and way, but at the end of the day, this is just how God works. Were it not for the Holy Spirit, there could be no effective evangelism. There is active agency on His part that is more important than the actual words used.


If Christians believe that Christ was a God and immortal (or resurrected), why do some avenge his killing in his name? Arguably the killing of Jesus Christ was the most avenged killing in history.  There is no other person for whom there were so many other people killed in the name of retaliation.

In Russian Empire the oppression of Jews was explicitly justified because of their complicity in Jesus' murder.

I wonder whether those Christians who thought that somebody, either modern or ancient, is guilty in killing Jesus, really believe in his resurrection and immortality?

How can one avenge a murder of an immortal? Or do those Christians believe in resurrection of Christ only metaphorically/figuratively? Do they think that he was resurrected in the body of the Church or in the spirits of Christians rather than physically?

An analogy: your father dead. You think that you or someone else is guilty. Then God miracliously resurrects your father. Do you still feel remorse, guilt or desire for revenge?

Is not desire for revenge actually a disbelief in real resurrection?

Nnowhere in scripture, or any Christian theology that I know of, are Christians commanded to avenge Christ's killing. In fact there is good evidence to say that God opposes it: "'Vengence is mine', sayeth the Lord". So any Christians who are taking revenge on any group because they believe them to be responsible for Jesus' death are not acting according to Christian principles. I'm not of course saying it hasn't happened - but since it's not in accordance with Christian principles then you aren't going to find any logical or theological justification.


Looking for a website with the 1984 NIV Bible version All the Bible websites that I know of have updated their NIV Bibles to the 2011 version. I used to use biblestudytools.com to access the 1984 version, but it now looks like it also has been updated to the 2011 version.

Can anyone point me to a site that still hosts the 1984 version? Or perhaps an eBook or other electronic means of accessing it? Whether free or for a price.

This appears to be what you are after here:

http://biblemegasite.com/outline-niv1984.html

As well as click through links (by book and then section) through to the NIV 1984 version hosted at studylight.org, it has  links that compare the changes in the newer version, and even a link to an audio version hosted at bible.is; although what Zondervan would have to say about some of their links I don't know...


Does 1 Corinthians 2:9 mean Heaven will be more joyous than we can contemplate? 1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV) states:

  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Does this mean that the joy of Heaven is incomprehensibly great or that some quality of the experience is beyond the current ability to contemplate?

For example, for foods that one has not tasted one might be unable to contemplate the particular taste (qualitative factor) but have had previous experience of the same degree of pleasure in tasting. Such tasting of new foods would be beyond contemplation in the second sense but not in the first sense.

So was Paul indicating that what is beyond contemplation is how much joy or some qualitative aspect?

This is one of those passages that is more metaphorical and should be taken in context with the entire passage, and, like the entire New Testament, it should be taken in context with common Judaic beliefs of the day.

The people to whom Paul is speaking know what heaven is supposed to be like. The resurrection of the dead and the paradise that awaits is often repeated. Paul wouldn't be trying to describe heaven in a single verse to people who'd been hearing about heaven their entire lives. Verse 9 is an analogy used to explain that Paul didn't come up with this stuff on his own. He is teaching what God taught him.

Simply, Paul is saying that compared to anything any person could have come up with, this wisdom from God is like this world compared to what we know heaven will be like.


What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity? I am discussing and debating the various subtle doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy with a very close friend of mine. One question I've asked is, "How do Orthodox Christians view the Immaculate Conception."

His exact answer was:

  Orthodoxy believes the Immaculate Conception to be superfluous. Saint
  Gregory the Theologian (4th c.) writes regarding the Incarnation,
  "That  which has not been assumed has not be saved." To make the
  Virgin Mary free of the taint of original sin pulls her out of the
  human chain, robbing Jesus of the Father's will for him to assume all
  of our fallen humanity in order to redeem and save it. (2 Cor. 5:21;
  Gal. 3:13a)

I think this is a pretty solid argument.

Especially the part that says:

  To make the Virgin Mary free of the taint of original sin pulls her out of the
  human chain, robbing Jesus of the Father's will for him to assume all
  of our fallen humanity in order to redeem and save it.

What explanation does the Catholic Church put forth to refute the statement above?

I think my question above differs from this question because I'm not necessarily asking for a scriptural argument (although it would definitely be welcomed).

To be clear, I am only interested in answers that are aimed at defending the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

There seems to be a thin line of differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the doctrine of Immaculate conception and seems to be in relation to the interpretation of doctrine of Original sin as seen here.  I though find hardly any difference between these two views, after reading this article. Here this work however  indicate that Eastern  Orthodoxy did have same views as Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Notwithstanding these two views, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still hold good because a Son who is Divine in nature cannot come in a womb of a woman who is defiled (whichever view one takes, whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality) by the very nature as human beings.

God at the instance of conception in St Anna’s womb, Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. This was done by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits (Divinity) of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race “.

In Luke 1:47, Mary proclaims:

  "My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour."

This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ.

Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin (Whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality). But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way ---by anticipation.

The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".


Is there a consensus among early Christians on Romans 9? How did the early church interpret St. Paul in Romans 9? Is there a consensus in early Christianity regarding the relation between predestination and free will?

The most important key in resolving an apparent conflicting passage in Scripture is by comparing it with how the same Holy Spirit guiding the early Christians throughout time interpreting the passage being disputed. If throughout time from the earliest moment a dispute was brought in attention and discussed down to the modern time show converging thoughts or cohesive consensus then that view has received the longest attention compared to others.
A popular ecclesiastical view that compatible with St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas of Aquinas doctrine on predestination and free will comes from a saint well respected by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike, a monk by the name John from Damascus in Syria. Instead of prioritizing free will by undermining predestination which leads to Pelagian heresy or emphasizing predestination at the expense of free will, this monk explains how the two are synergistically relatable.

One should know that it is customary for sacred Scripture to call God’s permission His action, as when the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Romans: ‘Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?’ He does indeed make both the one and the other, because He is the sole Creator of all things, but it is the own deliberate choice of each and not He that makes them honorable or dishonorable. This is also clear from what the Apostle himself says in his Second Epistle to Timothy: ‘In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every work.’ It is clear that this cleansing is done freely, for he says ‘if any man shall cleanse himself,’ the converse of which rejoins that, if he does not cleanse himself, he will be a vessel unto dishonor, of no use to Lord, and only fit to be broken. Thus, the foregoing quotation and that which reads: ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief’ and ‘God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear,’ are none of them to be taken in the sense of God acting, but in that of God permitting because of free will and because virtue is not forced.
St. John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 19.

The focus that Damascene pointed out is in the aspect of providence namely divine permissive will. It is by focusing on God's providence St. Damascene was able to reconcile the two apparent contradiction harmoniously.


What is the official Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships? The reason I ask is because a documentary of Pope Francis' papacy was shown at the Rome Film Festival on October 21st.  Some of the newspaper headlines I've seen seem rather inflammatory and so I am trying to get an official view on this subject.
This is a quote from the U.K. Daily Telegraph attributed to Pope Francis regarding the documentary (Francesco) that was shown:

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family.  They are children of God and have a right to a family.  Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it.  What we have to create is a civil union law.  That way they are legally covered.  I stand up for that."

What the newspaper article failed to say was when the Pope made this comment. When Pope Francis was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires he apparently opposed gay marriage but endorsed legal protection for the rights of gay people. Is the above quote related to this period of time?
It seems that Pope Francis gave approval to two gay men who have adopted three children to bring them up as Catholics (this in relation to the section of the film about Andrea Rubera and his partner Dario De Gregorio).
The newspaper article made this comment:

The endorsement of same-sex unions will have a huge impact in Africa, Asia and Latin America

It also pointed out that in some of those countries it can be a crime to engage in homosexual activities.
What is the official view of this documentary film about the papacy of Pope Francis in relation to the approval (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships?
EDIT:This link is relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#LGBT
Update: See this recent Vatican statement (link provided by GratefulDisciple): https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/vatican-moves-to-clarify-popes-comments-on-civil-union-laws-515948/
I apologise for still being unable to copy and paste these links properly.

What is the official Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships?
Let us keep in perspective that the words of Pope Francis were spoken when he was Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (Argentina)!
The words quoted from Pope Francis do not change what Catholics believe about the Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships.
We words quoted as coming from the present Sovereign Pontiff are merely his personal thoughts on this subject and do not alter the official stance of what the Church teaches on the subject.
The pope’s comment’s should not or even can be taken as an infallible Church statement. They ‘re not!
As in many statements made by various pope’s in various media postings, one begs to know how accurately the statement are to the actual words of the pope. In any case, the statement is far from an official statement on the part of the Catholic Church. Even Pope Francis seems the be saying that very fact on a personal level: ”That way they are legally covered. I stand up for that."
Off the cuff remarks, are often the hardest ones to get genuine interpretation, especially if a translation is involved.
Apparently, in October 2020, as pope, he did a make similar statement, as taken from Wikipedia:

He stated that he supports legally recognising same-sex civil unions in a statement from an interview published in October 2020; this passage was from an interview from 2019, but this passage had been cut from public releases at the time. The statement was also interpreted as supportive of LGBT adoption.

What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. They're children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out of be made miserable because of it.

It seems that Pope Francis is more to saying that in those countries which permit civil same-sex marriages that they should be legally covered by the state in question with the same rights as traditional marriages. He states nothing about sacramentally blessed marriages within the Church.

Why Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Impossible for Catholics
One of the key questions is that of same-sex “marriage.” Can Catholics ever endorse or allow same-sex “marriage”? If a secular government enacts legislation allowing two persons of the same sex to “marry,” there is little Catholics can do about it. We have good reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage” in society generally, but we have no power to impose those objections on others, and if the state approves same-sex “marriage,” all we can do is protest peacefully and assume a position — as we do with abortion — of tolerant resistance.
Those who disagree with Catholics on this issue should recognize and respect our position of tolerant resistance and attempt to understand why we are opposed.
We are not opposed to same-sex “marriage” because we hate homosexuals. We don’t “hate fags”; nor do we believe that God does. We don’t judge a person’s heart simply because he or she is attracted to persons of the same sex. The official teaching of the Catholic Church says homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (Catechism, 2358).
Are there some Catholics who are hateful bigots? Sure. There are people like that in all segments of society. They’re not only bad people, they’re bad Catholics.
However, when it comes to same-sex “marriage,” we are dealing not only with the question of homosexuality per se, but also of the Catholic sacraments. Those who disagree must therefore try to understand Catholic beliefs because the Catholic intransigence on the subject of same-sex “marriage” is not so much about homosexuality, but about the very foundation and core of the Catholic faith.
Catholic teaching is a unified, coherent and consistent body of thought that encompasses not only religious beliefs and behaviors, but also includes history, anthropology, political and economic theory, sexuality, cosmology and ecology. In other words, what we believe about God and humanity touches everything.
If we don’t allow same-sex weddings, we also don’t allow child brides, polygamy or remarriage after divorce for the same reason. We realize that others may disagree with our beliefs. We know members of other religions allow remarriage, child brides and polygamy. We also understand that other Christians and those with no belief may permit same-sex “marriage.” They may do so. We cannot stop them, but they should also realize that what their religion allows ours does not.
This doesn’t mean that we hate homosexuals, Muslims, Mormons, Episcopalians or atheists. It doesn’t mean that we are racists and bigots. We acknowledge that homosexual people may love one another. We can admit that if the law allows they may establish a civil union and live together. They may do as they please. They can even call what they do “marriage,” but that doesn’t make it marriage, and it certainly doesn’t make it a Catholic sacrament.
Catholic beliefs are not simply a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact.
Even if we want to, we can’t change the essentials of the sacrament of marriage — not because we can’t change our beliefs, but because we can’t change facts.

Here follows what Catechism of the Catholic Church say on this matter:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

For further information, the following articles may be of interest:

The Role of Civil Unions
Francis becomes 1st pope to endorse same-sex civil unions


Does the phrase "in good standing" have a definition in Catholicism? I'm helping draft a some statutes for a Catholic Lay Organization and we want to come up with a fairly exclusive group for our leadership and thought. The phrase, "Catholic in good standing" sounded like a good way of putting it. Is there a Canonical definition of what a Catholic in Good Standing is?

It's not a term used in canon law.
Canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., uses the the phrase "good standing" in his commentary on canon law, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the code of canon law itself.
The OED defines "to be in good standing with" as "to stand well with, be in favour with". Thus, a Catholic in good standing is one who is not excommunicated and practices the faith.


Is there an online or downloadable "copyable" bible? What I mean is a site or file that is designed to be copied on the computer. I.e, no headers, no footnotes, all chapters of a book on one page, preferably with options like verse-per-line and different versions (esv, kjv, etc.).

If this doesn't exist, someone should definitely make it. I frequently copy large portions, sometimes entire books, of the bible for study projects.

The best I've found is biblestudytools.com, which is almost perfect except I can't get rid of headers and there's only 1 chapter per page.

A number of Bible programs have a "copy verses" function with enough flexibility to do what you ask. I agree with Cindy's answer, that E-sword can most likely do it. My own preference is TheWord, available from www.theword.net.

I ran a test with two lines between verses, and headers only at the beginning of each chapter. I didn't try to space the chapter header properly, but I think you will see that you can adjust it to your liking if you try the program. To be sure it was adequate, I verified that it would copy the whole Bible, provided I used a public domain version. I used the American King James Version, abbreviated AKJV in this example:

... snip from Gen 1:1 ...

And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defiles, neither whatever works abomination, or makes a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev22AKJV

And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there

... snip rest of Rev 22 ...

TheWord is a Windows program, but is usable on Mac and Linux as well.


What is the Protestant argument against Immaculate Conception? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Immaculate Conception, which is defined by Pius IX as follows:

  "In the first instance of her [Mary's] conception, by a singular
  privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus
  Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all
  stain of original sin." Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
  (source)

However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Immaculate Conception entirely.

What, then, is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Immaculate Conception?

Firstly, it should be noted that not all Protestants reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is not as though there is a uniform Protestant doctrine that strictly states the Immaculate Conception to be false (if there is I am unaware of it). Martin Luther himself defended the Immaculate Conception:

  But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.

Only later did he refute his original position in the following way:

  Mary is conceived in sin just like us.

On a lesser note, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli also appear to adorn Mary (see the link posted above). The High Anglican Church goers also seem to be fond of the Immaculate Conception. All of these are simply examples of the fact that Protestant thought need not equate to 'anti-immaculate conception'.

That being said, the following are the most predominant arguments I've seen used by Protestants against the Immaculate Conception.

BIBLICAL VERSES

The following verses are often used in arguments against the Immaculate Conception:

Romans 3:23

  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

1 John 1:8

  If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him."

Luke 1:47

  "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (as spoken by Mary herself).

PROTESTANT THEOLOGY

Following these verses, Protestant theology rather firmly asserts the fact of sin and that such a fact is the very reason Christ came into the world. The main theory of atonement present in Protestant theology is known as penal substitution. It essentially asserts that Christ took upon himself punishment for every sin that has or ever will be committed. So saying that a person can be without such sin suggests not only that there is a soul that doesn't need Christ's power but also that Christ's own work is not fully needed. Obviously this presents a major problem. So typically most Protestants look rather firmly down upon the idea that even the Mother of God was without fault.

ORIGINAL SIN VS. PERSONAL SIN

Although many Protestants accept the idea that there exists original sin in some capacity, the Protestant sects face a wide range of differing views on exactly what is meant by the term. Needless to say, the significance of the theological concept that is so central to Catholic and Orthodox theology (which hold that Christ offered penance for original sin more so than personal sin) suffers in importance under Protestant theological consideration. The distinction that is apparent for Catholic and Orthodox thinkers between original sin and personal sin becomes blurred and less significant. The result is, according to Catholic and Orthodox thought, an inflation of the property of personal sin and a deflation in the property of original sin. Thus when the proposition that a person is 'sinless' comes into play, it is about as heretical as one can get. But it is a statement that under Protestant theology is not only confusing, but not able to be coherently understood with the current frame of thought.

In Protestantism, to propose that one is 'sinless' is to propose one does not need a savior. But Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity break down 'sin' into two essential parts; original sin and personal sin. Original sin engenders continuously the inclination to personal sin. So in theory, a soul can be sinless in regards to 'personal sin', but such would only indicate that the same soul was unified so significantly with the grace of Christ that they did not face the consequences of original sin. There are two ways to save a soul after all; they can be saved by falling into a pit and requiring assistance after the fact, or they can be saved by being cared for and guided around the pit. The latter would be the means by which Immaculate Conception proponents would suggest Mary was both saved and free from personal sin. Mary would have been preserved from original sin by the grace of the penance Christ offered for original sin, and thus would have been reserved from personal sin.

FINAL PROTESTANT OBJECTIONS

This clarification serves to dismiss the use of the Lukean verse in hopes that it contradicts the Immaculate Conception. But Protestants could likewise point out several objections to this whole line of thought, including the notion that it would seem unfair if God could save souls from the very oppurtunity of sin that he would pass up the chance. If God could exempt Mary of original sin, why could God not exempt all souls from original sin, or more so, why doesn't he? Another objection comes at the hands of the verses already mentioned. What is to say the verses stating that 'no person is without sin' is either a) only to be taken generally or b) referring to 'sin' in a way that allows theological exceptions. These objections are perhaps the most primary responses to the actual doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.


Homiletic directions from the Vatican to the Universal Church? I've noticed that recently sermons in my local church have focused particularly on the life of Saints. I have observed this in other churches I've recently attended too (at least in 3 different churches). A friend of mine has also noted this in several churches in a different continent (and country, and language). (Incidentally, just yesterday I received a new edition of a Catholic magazine, and voila, the focus on Saints was forefront, and this seemed not connected to the upcoming feast of All Saints. Rather, it is asking the reader to write back which is his/her favourite saint(s).)

All this might suggest that there was some form of informal or formal direction from the Vatican to focus homilies on the life of Saints. I've searched the Vatican website for this but cannot find anything about it. Sections of the Roman Curia I've checked include the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Congregation for Divine Worship, Secretariat for Communication, and many many other (full (?) list here).

So, my questions are:

Have you also noticed this in your local church?
If so, has there been a formal/public communication from the Vatican about it?
If not, then this might have been a form of private communication. Is there a precedent about this type of communications regarding homilies?

Maybe this is a specific issue motivated by the upcoming All Saints' celebration (although I observed this earlier than October), or perhaps by the March 2018 Apostolic Exhortation by the Pope, on the call to holiness, or both! All in all, the sudden change of focus might still indicate a formal type of direction from the Vatican.

The Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship has released a Homiletic Directory, designed to help priests improve their preaching.

Introducing the new document at a February 10, 2015 news conference, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said: “The Directory was not born without a reason. The aim is to respond to the need to improve the service of ordained ministers in liturgical preaching.”

The introductory Vatican decree was signed by Cardinal Canizares and was actually dated June 29,2014.

An English translation on the preaching directive from the Vatican can be found here: Homiletic Directory.


What is the estimated membership of Eastern Lightning? Eastern Lightning is a 20th century Chinese Christian movement, primarily known for its belief that God returned to Earth as the woman Yang Xiangbin to lead humanity a third and final time (after Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament).

However, the Wikipedia article currently lacks any information about membership. Given that the Chinese government considers the group to be an "evil cult" (邪教; xiéjiào) and tries to suppress it, I suspect that reliable numbers are hard find, but I would like to know how large it’s membership is estimated to be. Is it hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

If possible, I would like to have estimates of their membership both before and after their failed 2012 doomsday prophecy, given that the event was a heavy recruitment tool.

Eastern Lightning also goes by the name of The Church of Almighty God.  The Church of Almighty God split from the Shouters, who were led by Li Changshou, aka Witness Lee. It is virtually impossible to obtain verifiable statistics, but below are extracts from two reports. The first article is dated 29 July 2017.

  "In 1995 the group was banned by China, so the couple moved to America and maintained the cult's headquarters there.  China is not the only country in which the group has a presence. In fact, its website has details for sections in more than 20 countries.  Emily Dunn, an Asian studies academic at the University of Melbourne, claims it is estimated that the group has between several hundred thousand and one million members.”

Source: http://talkradio.co.uk/news/eastern-lightning-banned-chinese-cult-believes-woman-reincarnation-jesus-17072816806

  “The Church of Almighty God releases periodical statistics, and claims that between 2011 and 2013 more than 300,000 members were arrested. These figures are impossible to verify, but do not appear unbelievable if one considers the frequent references to “successful” campaigns against the Church of Almighty God in Chinese anti-xie-jiao propaganda and other official sources. The Church also reports that many of its members were tortured in China, and some died while in custody in suspicious circumstances. Despite governmental repression, and hostility by some leaders of the mainline Christian churches, the Church of Almighty God grew in China and, according to Chinese official sources, had reached four million members in 2014. The figure is disputed by scholars, and the situation in China makes statistics difficult.”

Source: https://censamm.org/resources/profiles/church-of-almighty-god


How old was Timothy when he became a Christian? Some people think he was a child or a teenager, others believe he was a young man when he converted to Christianity.

Is there any Biblical evidence to support any of these assumptions?

How old was Timothy when he became a Christian ? The question?

when he converted to Christianity?

Some people think he was a child?

Some people think he was a teen?

Some people think he was a young man.?

Is there any Biblical evidence, to support any of these assumptions?

  2Ti 1:2  To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (Not here...)

He has grandmother Lois, and mother Eunice; who were in the faith first, cause.....it say so here.

  2Ti 1:5  When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. (Nope, not here either...)

We could speculate, but they frown on that here.
I'm pretty much outta ideas.

So, no, there is no biblical evidence to prove any of these assumptions; which is really odd, 'cause you have a whole bunch of people that you cited there that think he was a child, a teenager, and a young man. That covers nearly half his life. And yet with all of these questions, and several speculative witnesses I can find no evidence of any of it. At least nothing substantial with respect to his age, or when he became a Christian.

We do, however, have him narrowly pegged; anywhere from a child to a young man, over a period of approximately twenty years. We can't really say any of that though; we must try to be precise when answering questions here, so as strange as it may seem there is absolutely no evidence for any of these assumptions. I'm surprised, I thought I would be able to find more.

I'm also surprised that no one else has answered this question yet. I almost never make it to a post before the moderators do; and this one is only seven months old. Weird.

Addendum:

By curtesy of Bruised Reed, we do also have this verse:

  1Ti 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

This is good evidence that Timothy was a youth at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

Also from Bruised Reed, I should have let him answer this one, we have incontrovertible evidence that:  Timothy was familiar with the Holy scriptures from infancy. That's pretty close to a definitive answer there, if it weren't for that pesky doubt about whether or not Paul was speaking in the context of Judaism. Hek with it, I am going to change my answer in light of this new evidence.

Answer: Timothy was an infant when he became a Christian; there is plenty of evidence to support that assumption.

Thank you Bruised Reed.

  2 Timothy 3:14-15New International Version
  14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


How Does Catholicism Refute the Reasons Muslims Claim That Jesus Was Not Crucified? Muslims say Jesus didn't claim to be God.

My question is Twofold:

1) When a Muslim objects to the teaching that Christ was crucified, what is their given reason that anyone ever attempted to crucify Jesus?

2) What proof does the Catholic Church present to refute or nullify those reasons Muslims give that anyone tried to crucify Jesus?

Muslims say that Christians changed the words of Jesus over time, hence inserted false statements into the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God. (See http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/changed.html) This claim was made long ago, before the discoveries of ancient Bible manuscripts, hymnals, fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other strong evidence that no changes have been made except minor typos and a few passages that may or may not have been in the originals, none of which change any doctrines of Christianity, especially the divinity of Christ and the reality of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Some Muslims hold to the swoon theory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis) - that Jesus was still alive when taken down from the Cross, but had passed out and looked dead. The flow of water from Jesus' side described in the Gospel of John when he was stabbed with a spear indicates that he had suffered pericardial effusion (see http://www.compellingtruth.org/blood-water-Jesus.html). You can't survive that. Such a telling detail is strong evidence of eyewitness testimony, not a later invention by someone who had never witnessed a real crucifixion.

As for why people were crucified, the Romans executed thousands of people using this method, including common criminals. Claiming to be a God might upset the Romans, who maintained that Caesar was a God.


Why is "Friends" capitalized in 1 Maccabees in the NRSV? Throughout 1 Maccabees in the NRSV, "Friends" is capitalized when referring to the King's friends.  Why is this?  My only guess is it's an official title.

Specifically, I would like to ask about 1 Maccabees 2:18:

  Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the
  Gentiles and the people of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem
  have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the Friends
  of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and
  gold and many gifts.” [NRSV]

Why is “Friends” capitalized in 1 Maccabees in the NRSV?

The NRSV is not the only version of Scriptures that has the term Friends of the King capitalized. Other versions do the same.

The origins of the King's Friends can be seen in the history of Hushai a friend of King David and a spy according to the Hebrew Scriptures.

  Hushai or Chusai was a friend of David and a spy according to the Hebrew Bible. During Absalom's rebellion, as described in the Second Book of Samuel, he agrees to act as an advisor to Absalom to sabotage his plans while secretly sending information to David. It was on his advice that Absalom did not immediately pursue the retreating David, thus giving David time to regroup and gather his forces. Hushai's advice helped to ensure Absalom's rapid defeat.

  Life

  Hushai was an Archite, that is, a native of Archi, a place south of the portion of Ephraim, near Bethel (Joshua 16:2). He is called in 1 Chronicles 27:33 "the king's friend". This title is similar to that of counselor given to Ahitophel, or that of leader of the army to Joab: there is a similar use of the term in 1 Kings 4:5. In the Books of the Maccabees it is an official title given by the Seleucids to persons of confidence who have important military or civil functions (1 Maccabees 2:18; 3:38; 6:10, 14, 28; 7:6-8; etc.). It is likely then, that Hushai's title of "friend" of King David does not imply the intimate relations suggested by the term.

  Nevertheless, the account that is given of him during Absalom's rebellion (2 Samuel 15 - 17) shows that in his case the title was not merely official. After David has heard of the treason of his counselor Ahitophel, he organizes an evacuation of Jerusalem. On his way up the Mount of Olives he is met by Hushai, whose garments are rent and whose head is covered with dust. He is probably an old man, for David tells him he would be a burden in the flight.3 But the king does honour to Hushai's cleverness by sending him to Jerusalem, to "defeat the counsel of Ahitophel". Hushai persuades Absalom to take him into his confidence, and, in the council held shortly afterwards in regard to the measures to be taken against David, he overrules Ahitophel and obtains a delay which secures the safety of the king. He is able likewise to convey information to David through Zadok, Abiathar, and their sons: Ahimaaz, Zadok's son and Jonathan, Abiathar's son. (2 Samuel 15:36) - Hushai (Wikipedia)

The Jewish Virtual Library states that Hushai actually held the office of the King's Friend and as such it would be capitalized:

  HUSHAI THE ARCHITE (Heb. חוּשַׁי הָאַרְכִּי), biblical figure listed in I Chronicles 27:33 as holding the office of "the king's friend" under David. In II Samuel 15:37; 16:17 he is referred to as "David's friend." Hushai figures prominently in the story of the rebellion of *Absalom. At the time of David's flight from Jerusalem, Hushai, deeply grieved and wearing the traditional rent garments and ashes, sought to join David's company on The Mount of Olives, to which they had fled when Jerusalem's capitulation to Absalom appeared inevitable. David, however, persuaded Hushai to return and offer his allegiance to Absalom, so that he might defeat the counsels of *Ahithophel, David's adviser, and that he might supply information to David (II Sam. 15:32–37). Hushai, accepted as a loyal adviser by Absalom, successfully opposed Ahithophel's plan to pursue and attack David immediately, proposing instead that Absalom mass his forces and attack David in person. Having thus afforded David time to escape, Hushai sent word to David through his couriers, the sons of the priests *Abiathar and *Zadok, to cross the Jordan immediately (II Sam. 17:5–16). Although no more is heard of Hushai himself, Baana son of Hushai, one of the prefects of Solomon listed in I Kings 4:16, is probably his son.

  The term "the Archite" indicates that Hushai belongs to the clan named in Joshua 16:2–3 as dwelling in the vicinity of Ataroth, on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin. The name Hushai itself is most probably a short form of the name Ahishai, Ahushai.


Is Knuth's 3:16 project unique? Famous computer scientist Donald Knuth is also the author of 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated (A-R Editions, 1990). This is a tour of the Bible using the methodology of "stratified random sampling", where Knuth examines chapter 3, verse 16, of each Bible book (for which such a verse exists). Each one is illustrated with typographical art, and three pages of commentary. For example, the following image is for 1 Timothy 3:16 - note the hidden cross shape. (The history of this picture is also discussed in Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About; the cross shape came about as a happy accident!)

Knuth's aim with this sample was to present a more-or-less representative picture of the Bible; the choice of 3:16 was to make sure that for at least one verse (John 3:16), he'd have something to say. It turns out that many of the 3:16s are surprisingly interesting, and there are some common themes that run throughout the whole book. He speculates about other variations on the same theme - for example, taking every 4:4, or picking a wholly random assortment of verses without regard to chapter and book boundaries.

Has anybody else produced a work of exegesis based on a similar "sampling" idea - not looking at every single verse, nor at a selection with a common theme, but at an almost arbitrary choice of verses? Now that Knuth has done this experiment once - in my view, successfully - is there any insight to be gained in doing something similar again?

While I don't know of any other attempts to sample the Bible, I don't see any reason another method couldn't be tried.

However, I would be reluctant to endorse another method that focuses on individual verses because context matters a great deal when it comes to exegesis (i.e. interpretation).  Take for instance:

  For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.—Mark 12:25 (ESV)

Taken alone, this presents a host of problems:

It says that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection, but in context it's clear that Jesus means there is no marriage relationship between men and women.
While the verse implies we become like angels in the resurrection, that only refers to whether we are married to each other.  Apparently his audience was more familiar with angelology than the theology of resurrection.
This verse implies that we will rise from the dead to heaven, but that idea is contradicted by Revelation 21.

As N. T. Wright says:

  I remember a well-known Preacher saying that he thought a lot of Christians used the Bible as an unsorted edition of Daily Light.  It really ought to be arranged into neat little devotional chunks, but it happens to have got all muddled up.  The same phenomenon occurs, at a rather different level, when People treat it as an unsorted edition of Calvin’s Institutes, the Westminster Confession, the UCCF Basis of Faith, or the so-called ‘Four Spiritual Laws’.  But to treat the Bible like that is, in fact, simply to take your place in a very long tradition of Christians who have tried to make the Bible into a set of abstract truths and rules—abstract devotional doctrinal, or evangelistic snippets here and there.

In some ways, Knuth's sample does encourage us to ask questions of our Bible and seek the bigger picture.  Everyone knows (or thinks they know) why John 3:16 is in our Bible, but what about:

  And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.—Judges 3:16 (ESV)

or:

  For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?—Hebrews 3:16 (ESV)

Hopefully such verses cause at least some people to hunt down that all-important context.


Basis for the concept of an "Age of accountability" Having attended Baptist Churches for years, I've often heard the term "age of accountability" bandied about.

The idea is that if a child dies at a young age - before reaching the "age of accountability", that child will go to Heaven, because he or she is not yet responsible for his or her sins.  He or she is "too young to understand the Gospel".

This age is not a specific age, but is understood to be different for everyone.  I'm not asking what this age is.

What I am asking, is where is the Scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine?

Quite frankly, one of the reasons I stick to Baptist Churches is not because I consider myself a Baptist, but because it's the one denomination where in my (admittedly limited) experience, Pastors consistently say "If I ever preach anything that's not in the Word, or contrary to the Word, don't believe me."

Yet, I can find no Scriptural evidence for such a doctrine.  Am I missing it?    If so, where is it in Scripture?  If it exists, please point me  to the verses.

Or is it a doctrine based on supposition, attempting to reconcile the idea that a loving God, and the horrific idea that child could go to Hell simply for not being old enough to understand their lost state, repent, and put their faith in Christ?

There are two aspects to the Biblical basis for this doctrine.

1) Rationale

There is a rationale, theological argument that God is just, and would not impute sin where there was no knowledge of sin or no opportunity to choose Him.  This is based on Old Testament passages like Proverbs 24:12, as well as New Testament passages such as:

  sin is not imputed when there is no law -Romans 5:13

2) Precedence

But the main argument comes from a story in 2 Samuel 12:14-31 in which God takes the life of David's newborn son as punishment for his sin.  After his son is dead, David makes the following statement:

  But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” -v.23

This is generally taken to mean that David expected to see his son again in Heaven some day, even though he died as an infant, and never had the chance to accept or reject God.

The obvious question though, is why did David expect to see his son again?  The popular answer, of course, is that all such children go to Heaven.  After all, the alternative is unthinkable - surely God would not judge an infant with eternity in Hell if they never had a chance to hear the gospel.

Assessment

For what it's worth, I think the doctrine of an "age of accountability" is based on a lot of misunderstandings and bad hermeneutics.  However, we can rest assured that God is perfect in His love, justice, and wisdom.  For an alternative view to the "age of accountability" see my post here.


Seraphs in the Bible? Are there any mentions of seraphs intermingling with other characters in the Bible? All I know about them is that they are in hymns.

The only reference in Scripture to the seraphim is in the book of Isaiah (though the apocryphal Book of Enoch makes several references to the seraphim as well):

Above him [God] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:2-7 ESV)

According to the translation notes of the NET Bible:

[The] Hebrew שָׂרָף (saraf, "seraph") literally means "burning one," perhaps suggesting that these creatures had a fiery appearance (cf. TEV, CEV "flaming creatures"; NCV "heavenly creatures of fire"). Elsewhere in the OT the word "seraph" refers to poisonous snakes (Num_21:6; Deu_8:15; Isa_14:29; Isa_30:6). Perhaps they were called "burning ones" because of their appearance or the effect of their venomous bites, which would cause a victim to burn up with fever. It is possible that the seraphs seen by Isaiah were at least partially serpentine in appearance.

There may be indirect references to the seraphim in other passages, such as Psalm 104:4 (Hebrews 1:7): "He makes His messengers winds; His ministers a flaming fire." It has been speculated that Satan was a seraph because he has been described as a serpent.


Is there a biblical ban on running a casino? This is a spin on the question Is there a Biblical ban on gambling?

Is opening a casino considered a "shady business" a Christian should not be involved in? (Yes, let's assume it's perfectly legal.)

This question seeks to involve both the offline and online worlds (online poker, online lottery, online dice, etc).

Christianity is freedom, freedom from the Law (10 commandements, which created the notion of sin, without that law, there is no sin), freedom from the judgement. But a christians are a different species, they are not human, they are christian, not born through Adam but born through Christ (by the baptism), as an apple tree only produce apples what we produce cannot be called sin (for we don't belong that category), Adam 's sin is not in us, at least for those who really believe (faith is not mesurable).

I'm saying you are free to run a casino. But you will be naturally incline to stop yourself those of your consumers that are addicted and ruining their lifes and their families with gambling. Nobody can tell you what are you doing is wrong, but same as an apple tree that only can produce apples, your nature (you) will feel bad from continuing to take money from those who are addicted gamblers (and are having problems because of that, if your consumer is a billionaire and gambling is something he like to do and have no problems from that, it's not a bad addiction). So if you can run a casino, with our chistian nature's sense of justice it will be a healthy casino, where people have a good time and feel good, so if you can do so, just go for it, christian style ! you have no law, no ban, we just are christians. Be bless.


Should we 'let our light shine' and tell people the good works that we do? There are two subjects that could be construed as contradictory in our Lords sermon on the mount. Here is an instance:

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

So what is Jesus saying? Should we tell others about the good things we have done, being a role model and example to them, or keep those things secret?

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

God is telling us not to be prideful and boast in front of others. In other words, don't go "Look at what I've done. I'm so great." But rather, "Look at what God has allowed me to do, isn't God awesome?!"
One is self glorifying, where as the other attributes the glory to God. One statement can easily turn other people off, the other one (may) lead people to be curious about God. This is not to say that we shouldn't feel happy regarding the things that God is doing through us, but rather that we should remain humble and always remember that it is through God's grace that we are able to do such things for His kingdom.


Why do Jehovah Witnesses think that the cross doesn't have hands? They said that the original cross is just a torture stake.

Why do they think that way? Not that I think they're wrong. I am just wondering.

The Jehovah's Witness use of the word stake instead of cross is based on scholarly examination of the original Greek manuscripts.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

  "stauros denotes, primarily, 'an upright pale or stake.'...Both the noun and the verb stauroo, 'to fasten to a stake or pale,' are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed 'cross.'"

Oxford University’s Companion Bible says:

  "The evidence is...that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."

History shows that the cross is a pagan symbol that predates Christianity, but that the churches allowed its adoption in order to facilitate conversion of pagans. Witnesses reject the cross as a tradition that does not have a Biblical basis.


Are there any American Christian denominations that refer to the days of the week by alternate names? At this time of year Bible and Christianity fora are full of posts hinting that Christians who celebrate Christmas are guilty of paganism because it coincides with some pagan holiday celebrated in antiquity.

Given the same line of reasoning, do any (presumably very conservative) Christian denominations in the United States refer to any of the days of the week with alternate names?  Wednesday, for example, is named after the Norse god Odin; Thursday, after Thor; etc.

I believe that the original name days in Latin referred to the days of the week by number, with Monday being the second day (secunda), etc.  This custom persists in Portuguese, with Monday through Friday being referred to by ordinal numbers (Segunda-feira, Terça-feira, ... Sexta-feira).

I know that it seems rather fanatical, but are there some denominations that, in order to avoid saying something roughly equivalent to "We're having a Bible study on Thor's day", have come up with alternate names for some days of the week?

Historically, the Religious Society of Friends—commonly known as Quakers—objected to the common names of week days and of months, for exactly the reason you bring up. The website of the Iowa Yearly Meeting has a discussion of this, but in practice the names are quite simple. The week-day names are "First Day" through "Seventh Day" for Sunday through Saturday respectively. Similarly the months are "First Month" through "Twelfth Month" for January through December.

As the web page indicates, many Friends have come to the decision to use the more common names of the days and months, reasoning that the pagan overtones of the names have vanished in modern usage.


What is the difference between a priest and a pastor? I'm writing a book and one character is Catholic and I'm not sure whether to use pastor or priest. And, one character gets possessed, yes I know that that's fictional, but would a Catholic "leader" perform an exorcism?

I will first answer the question posed by the O.P. in the title.

Priests vs. pastors

A priest is a baptized man (he has to be a male) who has received the second degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. That is, he was previously ordained a deacon (the first degree), and subsequently ordained a second time to the order of the presbyterate (the second degree).* (For this reason, a priest may also be called by the more technical name of “presbyter.” This term etymologically comes from the Greek “presbyteros”—that is, “older” or “elder.”)

Priestly ordination confers upon the ordained the capability of exercising certain functions that are necessary for Catholic worship: in particular the ability to celebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist. (He can also hear confessions, give the Anointing of the Sick, and, in some restricted but fairly frequent cases, give the Sacrament of Confirmation.)

(For an overview of the Church’s teachings on the presbyterate, or priesthood, see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] Nos. 1562-1568.)

On the other hand, a pastor is simply the priest (or in a small number of cases, the bishop) who is in charge of a parish. As the Code of Canon Law (CIC) succinctly puts it,

  A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church [i.e., a diocese or similar structure], whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) [probably better rendered “shepherd”] under the authority of the diocesan bishop.

(For the benefit of those not familiar with the Catholic Church’s organization, parishes are usually territorial—that is, they occupy a geographical area, usually a relatively small area within one city or town—and are typically associated with a single church, called the parish church. Some parishes may support several church buildings.)

In summary: priests are those baptized men that have been admitted to the presbyterate—that is, the second degree of Holy Orders. Those priests that have been chosen as the permanent heads of parishes—that is, the smallest territorial division of the Church—are called pastors.**

Applied to exorcism

When a man receives presbyteral ordination, in addition to the capacity to effect certain sacraments, it also gives him the power to perform certain sacramentals, including solemn exorcism. Nevertheless, he can only perform this kind of exorcism with the explicit permission of his bishop. As the Catechism explains,

  The solemn exorcism, called “a major exorcism,” can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church (CCC 1673).

Hence, any priest—pastor or otherwise—could, in theory, be called to do a solemn exorcism (provided, of course, he has the necessary permission). However, the general practice in dioceses nowadays is to appoint a full-time exorcist who is an expert in these matters.

(Someone who fears that he is possessed, or otherwise suffering from demonic influence, would probably talk first with the pastor or another priest. This priest, in turn, would most likely direct him to contact his local diocese, who would then put him in contact with the exorcist, if necessary.)

* It is technically possible for a layperson to be ordained a priest per saltum—that is, without passing through the diaconate. However, such an ordination would be contrary to Canon Law (see Can. 1031) and the longstanding traditions of every apostolic church.

** There are a few complications that can be mentioned in passing. First, a handful of parishes are personal; that is, they are not associated with a geographical area, but comprise a groups of persons who have freely chosen to become members of that parish. Second, when the post of pastor becomes vacant, the diocesan bishop or ordinary will temporarily appoint an administrator, who has most, but not all, of the faculties of a pastor.


From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, why don't we have the option to choose whether or not to come to this world? I was one of Jehovah's witnesses and would still be one of them, but a question always disturbs me.

Sometimes I think about how life and all the pain and suffering we pass through from childbirth down the time of death, and the question I ask myself is: Why is it that when we are about to be conceived we do not have the option to choose to come into this world or not? If I were given that option I would not choose to come into this world that is filled with all of these problems, even with Jehovah's promise of a new world to come.

(Note: I would love a strong brother in the Jehovah's Witness faith to answer this question.)

Jehovah’s Witnesses, like most Christians, teach that we come into existence some time around conception. (I’m not sure that they ever pin it down exactly, and while they oppose abortion, I don’t think I’ve heard them complain about methods which prevent implantation. Let’s just say that, by Witness teaching, you become a human some time between conception and birth.)

Given that, by Witness teaching, you didn’t exist before your conception, you weren’t around to be asked. Once you did exist, it was too late to ask you: you’re already here. As such, the question does not arise.

The Witnesses do not teach ensoulment, the belief that the soul is “infused” into the body at some point during pregnancy. In fact, for most purposes, they make no distinction between soul, body, and spirit.* You are your soul. And that soul is mortal. It exists here because it does exist here: you weren’t brought into this world, as if you’d come from elsewhere — you came into existence right here: you are of this world.

* They do, actually, distinguish these terms, but none of the distinctions seem relevant for this answer; they would be very relevant if you’d asked for a Catholic perspective.


The four living creatures and twenty-four elders in Revelation? "The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."

The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation.

In Revelation 4:

  4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four elders sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5
  From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal.
  In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:
  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
  who was, and who is, and who is to come.”

  9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming:
  11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God,
  to receive glory and honor and power,
  for you created all things;
  because of your will they came to be and were created.”

In Revelation 5:

  6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14.

In Revelation 6:

  1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories.

This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge.

Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19:

  7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,

  14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth.

  15:7 One of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever.

  19:4 The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.”

What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders?

Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.

Traditionally:

The twenty-four elders represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.
The four living creatures represent universal creation; on some accounts, the four evangelists.

From the Navarre commentary on RSVCE page 54:

Christian tradition going back as far as St Irenaeus has interpreted these four creatures as standing for the four evangelists because they "carry" Jesus Christ to men. The one with the face of a man is St Matthew, who starts his book with the human genealogy of Christ; the lion stands for St Mark: his Gospel begins with the voice crying in the wilderness (which is where the lion's roar can be heard); the ox is a reference to the sacrifices in the temple of Jerusalem, which is where St Luke begins his account of Christ's life, and the eagle represents St John, who soars to the heights to contemplate the divinity of the Word.

Saint Irenaeus lived 130-202. However, the notes on Revelation 4 in NABRE seem to clarify this, and they read:

Universal creation is represented by the four living creatures (Rev 4:6–7) [...]
Lion…calf…human being…eagle: these symbolize, respectively, what is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in creation. Calf: traditionally translated “ox,” the Greek word refers to a heifer or young bull. Since the second century, these four creatures have been used as symbols of the evangelists Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, respectively.
Twenty-four elders: these represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles; cf. Rev 21:12–14.

Revelation 21:12-14 reads:

12 It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, [the names] of the twelve tribes of the Israelites.
13 There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.
14 The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.


Does the Book of Mormon (& LDS doctrine) pass the test found in 1 John 4:2 as the true spirit of God? Do Mormons agree that part of their trust in the book of Mormon (and the LDS church doctrine) is that it agrees with the following scriptures as a kind of litmus test is discerning the truth from the false in this world?

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, (1 John 4:2)
If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. (1 John 5:1)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Does the LDS church “acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” and confess His name as the above scriptures suggest?

David, I admire your research into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, LDS, or the Mormons. :)
In the Book of Mormon we read;

Moroni 10:32 - Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness , and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace is sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
Moroni 10:33 - And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

I find it interesting that you use the word "test" in your question. As a young member of the LDS Church, we do maintain the belief in that Jesus Christ has "come in the flesh"(1John,4:2) and that he came for the remission of our sins.
As I said, I am a young member of the LDS church and I am still studying myself the Book of Mormon and other teachings of my church. I am confident that there are others on this site with more studying under their belt that may be able to answer your questions more fully. I hope I could shed a little light into what you are in search of.
Thanks!


Is Jesus speaking in Isaiah 40-48? In Isaiah chapters 40-48 there are several different titles for God, for example Creator, Redeemer, Savior, The First and the Last, King of Israel. After considering these titles I came to the conclusion that God in these chapters was referring to Jesus Christ and not God the Father because they all match titles given to Christ and never specify the father. What evidences are there of Jehovah being Jesus Christ in these verses, and what evidences are there against it? Answers from believers in the trinity, or not are both welcome.

The answer to your question is a qualified yes. If we are to accept that all Scripture is inspired by God, then we can logically deduce that Jesus gave these predictions to Isaiah to write. Whether or not those exact words are the utterances of a pre-incarnate Jesus or not is not worth arguing in that they are so accurate that whether they came from Isaiah or from Jesus they are predictive of him.

Isaiah gave the most and the most accurate predictions of Christ of all the Prophets, however; much of his writings were to bolster the spirits of those exiles to Babylon, and even those prophesies concerning Christ were given to show that God would not abandon his people.

This excerpt is from the commentary known as the ‘Treasury of Scriptural knowledge.’

  Isaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the Evangelical Prophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the sufferings and death, and the extensive and permanent kingdom of the Messiah.  So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so numerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events yet future; and he may be rather called an evangelist than a prophet.

In addition the following will help in understanding Isaiah’s prophesies when compared to the Gospel accounts and come from the same source:

(Compare Isa_7:14 with Mat_1:18-23, and Luk_1:27-35; see Isa_6:1-13; Isa_9:6; Isa_35:4; Isa_40:5, Isa_40:9, Isa_40:19; Isa_42:6-8; compare Isa_61:1, with Luk_4:18; see Isa_62:11; Isa_63:1-4); his miracles (Isa_35:5, Isa_35:6); his peculiar character and virtues (Isa_11:2, Isa_11:3; Isa_40:11; Isa_43:1-3); his rejection (Compare Isa_6:9-12 with Mar_13:14; see Isa_7:14, Isa_7:15; Isa_53:3); his sufferings for our sins (Isa_50:6; Isa_53:4-11); his death and burial (Isa_53:8, Isa_53:9); his victory over death (Isa_25:8; Isa_53:10, Isa_53:12); his final glory (Isa_49:7, Isa_49:22, 33; Isa_52:13-15; Isa_53:4, Isa_53:5); and the establishment, increase, and perfection of his kingdom (Isa_2:2-4; Isa_9:2, Isa_9:7; Isa_11:4-10; Isa_16:5; Isa_29:18-24; Isa_32:1; Isa_40:4, Isa_40:5; Isa_42:4; Isa_46:13; Isa_49:9-13; Isa_51:3-6; Isa_53:6-10; Isa_55:1-3; Isa_59:16-21; 60; Isa_61:1-5; Isa_65:25); each specifically pointed out, and pourtrayed with the most striking and discriminating characters.  It is impossible, indeed, to reflect on these, and on the whole chain of his illustrious prophecies, and not be sensible that they furnish the most incontestable evidence in support of Christianity.

I have highlighted those verses which are contained in your question, but It is well worth taking the time to study Isaiah in relation to the Gospels.


History of Christian Prayer I am interested in learning the history of Christian prayer. There are denominations in which people always stand up, take off their hats if they are men, and become silent, humble and serious as a way of expressing respect to God.

In other denominations, people do not pay much attention to external features of prayer. They don't stand up or hold hands, and they don't even have to assume a proper pose; rather, they can pray simultaneously (not in turns), they can pray out loud, shout, express their joy, anger, contempt, etc. Usually Westerners do not pay attention to posture in prayer.

Does anybody know whether there were times when people / ministers deliberately worked out decent ways and postures for praying? Can we say that movements/groups like Catholics, Mennonites, or Anabaptist's created their own ways of prayer that can still be seen in some denominations?

My question is basically this: Why some Christians stand up and assume certain postures, while others pray however they want? How long has it been so? Is it related to the difference between Eastern and Western mentality? Has humanism affected the christian approach to God in prayer?

Does anybody know whether there were times when people/ ministers
  deliberately worked out decent ways and postures for praying?

These innovations in postures and ways of prayers / prayer services exists as far back as we have sources (This goes for all religions and denominations of Christianity).

The use of folded hands most likely came from the Jewish priesthood (as do many other parts of the Mass - in particular those relating to sacrifice). The Mass is the replacement of the bloody sacrifice of the Jews with the unbloody sacrifice where Jesus is the lamb who is sacrificed in every Mass (literally according to Catholic belief).

You also mention standing prayers. In Judaism a prayer service such as the Amidah (The standing prayer) where people stand goes back before  the Siege of Jerusalem (2000 years ago). Since then prayer services have greatly expanded and with that new ways, postures and also for example clothing(largely medieval innovations).

Other ways of prayer are most definitely deliberate but if we want to find the actual source it'll probably be lost in time or hard to pinpoint which church began.

  Can we say that movements/groups like Catholics, Mennonites,
  Anabaptist created their own ways of prayer that can still be seen in
  some denominations?

Many of the prayer rituals originated in Judaism.
Others rituals were taught directly by Christ to the apostles(It is believed that Jesus taught the apostles the way to say the Mass and the other sacraments whilst they were together.) who, in turn, taught them to the new "apostles" (the bishops they appointed).
Others were assimilated into the Church by missionaries as they traveled.

Aside from a few minor differences, the early Christians practiced much in the same way as modern Christians like folding hands; the sign of the cross, the kiss of peace, etc. were all in the Mass from the start.

  Why some Christians stand up and assume certain postures, while others
  pray however they want? How long has it been so?

Since Christianity exists, there were always denominations / churches with their own innovations of rituals like prayer.