How do Unitarians understand these verses which seem to say that all created things were created by Jesus? John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Hebrews 1:8, 10: But about the Son he says, ... He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. Revelation 3:14, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God."

These verses all say that it was Jesus or God the Son who created the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says:

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE.

According to Unitarian theology Jesus Christ is a created being and He never preexisted His incarnation as a man. So explain how or why Jesus is identified as the Agent of creation according to the verses quoted?

John 1:1-3

The Word is further described in verses 9-18. There, note verse 18b: "the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained Him".  Only-begotten, means had a beginning.

What about this one in Psalm 82:1, saying "God stands in the divine convention, pronounces judgment in the midst of gods."

Colossians 1:16

I had thought this explains the matter: all things created through [or "by means of"] him and for him.

Something similar is said of a personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-29, in existence before the physical creation as we know it.  Then it continues in v30,31: "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, and I was especially fond of the sons of men."

Would such a comparison be misplaced in a context where Wisdom represents Jesus?  Colossians 2:3 says "Carefully concealed in him [the Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge".  That notion brings the idea much closer to the ground, if I may say so.

On the master worker idea, if you build a house, you may do all the work yourself: design, obtaining materials, construction etc.  You may also choose to, say, let a contractor do all the actual construction works.  Although the contractor did all that work, who is said to have built the house?  Sometimes a bit of a grey area, isn't it?

Hebrews 1:8,10

These bits are much easier to understand if you take them in the context.  Just for a few highlights:

Verse 2 says that God had spoken "by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

If Jesus was appointed heir, it means that he neither had been forever nor that he was naturally as God's equal.  After all, appointment is done by higher authority, not?

Verse 4 adds that "he [the Son] has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs".

The Son becoming better than the angels, implies that before that, he was at least in some respects equal to angels at the very best.  Is that something that could be said of the Almighty God, the Creator, who made the angels, that are part of creation?

Jesus as Agent of Creation

I cannot speak for every Unitarian, but Jesus himself did mention his pre-human existence in a number of occasions.  For example, John 6:38: "for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me". Or in John 8:23, his own words "You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world, I am not from this world". The latter must have sounded weird and unreal for anyone who had his birth (or conception) in mind as the beginning of his existence.

But the most direct expression is in John 8, where the Jews ridicule Jesus for claiming he has seen Abraham while he's not even 50 years old, and his reply in verse 58: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".

Summary

So to sum it all up, Jesus may have been involved in the creation of all other things without being the Creator, just as God had spoken by means of him, in the same manner that God had spoken by means of the prophets.

I am not really familiar with Unitarian theology, but the Bible contains statements from Jesus about his existence before being human.

Context

There is a large number of passages and hints in the Bible that support the understanding that Jesus is not the Almighty God, for example the headship arrangement (1 Corinthiant 11:3), the prospect of the glorified Christ "subjecting himself to God" (1 Corinthians 15:28) and "the revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him" [as opposed to Jesus having the knowledge naturally from the beginning] (Revelation 1:1).  Jesus also never supported that idea himself (Matthew 26:39; Mark 10:18; John 5:19-24; John 17:3; John 20:17,21; Acts 1:7).

Additionally, Unitarians question ideas like "What was the point of Jesus praying if he was speaking to himself?", or "if Jesus is God, how could he have died? How can God die? Or was he not really dead (as in not conscience of anything, Ecclesiastes 9:5.6,10), meaning that the resurrection isn't real?", or "How could Jesus have been sent as a messenger and granted things if he was of the same identity and had the same authority as the Father?", or "How could someone mediate between two parties, if this individual is a member of one of the two parties himself?" (1 Timothy 2:5,6; compare Daniel 2:44; 7:13,14).

With such a large amount of sources indicating otherwise, Unitarians do not lean towards changing their beliefs (into acknowledging Jesus as being God) just because a few verses are not entirely clear and may be difficult to explain. Besides, even unjust human judges are called gods in the Bible (Psalm 82:6). It does not seem irrational to me to say that a change in belief has to be backed up by sufficient evidence (more than a few verses that are open to different interpretations), and in harmony with the whole Bible.


What are the main theological differences between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists? I have recently met people who are Reformed Baptist. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what their major beliefs are, especially in comparison to other Baptists. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the group, but doesn't summarize the major theological beliefs.

Do they still hold to the defining Baptist tenet that only adult baptism is valid? Are there other major differences between them?

Both the 2d London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (often called "the 1689" by adherents) and the 1689 Federalism site provide great resources on this inquiry.

In short, the main differences between a "reformed" baptist and a "general" baptist are:

monergistic vs synergistic views of salvation
a generally Calvinistic (ie "reformed") view of the state of man and the doctrine of God (typically shown in the acronym TULIP) vs a typically Arminian view of God and man
a strict view of credobaptism (which, while similar to other baptists, also sets RBs apart in that child "dedications" are rare (though not considered heretical))
a very strong view of the church universal, and as displayed in local bodies
an understanding that there are Christians in other denominations (which separates RBs from Landmarkists or "Grand Ole Church" baptists)
a staunchly-held view of the regulative principle of worship (RPW) which manifests most commonly in highly-esteeming the public reading of God's Word, the centrality of preaching God's Word, public prayer, and an eschewing of the "latest and greatest 'church ideas'" in favor of conservative views of dress, music, translations used (though I have never heard of a KJVO RB church, the tendency is to favor formal equivalence translations to all others in most scenarios)
a rejection of Dispensationalism as both inadequate and aberrant in its teachings, especially with regard to eschatology and the so-called "church age", and its typically-attendant love of charts and graphs outlining when and where biblical prophecies are being fulfilled


Why is it more difficult for a Mormon woman to control whom she is eternally sealed to? The USA Today newspaper has an article titled "Mormon doctrine leaves potential for 'eternal polygamy'" (reference) that makes the following statement:

  Decades have passed since male members of the mainstream LDS Church
  were allowed to marry more than one wife at a time, but the church
  still allows a man to be “sealed” to another woman in the temple if he
  remarries following the death of a first wife, according to an essay
  at lds.org. However, a woman whose husband has died cannot be sealed
  in the temple to a second man after remarrying.

So based on that paragraph, a Mormon man can be sealed to another woman (if the previous one is deceased) without having to break that sealing but a Mormon woman can not be sealed to another man (even if the previous one is deceased).

An exception to this is if her sealing is broken (a subject in my older question here). But while that is on one hand not a particularly straight-forward, it is also something that is not required from Mormon men.

Because a Mormon man can get eternally sealed to multiple women, there is always the risk for a Mormon woman that in the end she was not the only one sealed to her husband.

My question is:
What is the reasoning (from LDS canon) behind why it is comparatively more difficult for a woman to control whom she is eternally sealed to?

The information I am presenting comes from the newly released General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I think the most important section in that handbook for answering your questions comes from Section 38.5 (emphasis is my own)

Members who have concerns about the eternal nature of the sealing ordinance and their associated family and spousal relationships can find peace in the knowledge that Heavenly Father is loving and just. Faithful children who are sealed to parents or born in the covenant retain the blessing of eternal parentage. This is so even if their parents cancel their marriage sealing, have their Church membership withdrawn, or resign their membership.
Members who are divorced but still sealed to the former spouse are often troubled by the thought of that sealing. The sealing will not be compulsory in the postmortal life for either a man or a woman. If temple covenants are broken and no repentance is made, the sealing between the husband and wife is revoked. However, those who keep their covenants will retain the individual blessings provided by the sealing. This is the case even if the spouse has broken the covenants or withdrawn from the marriage.

Given what is said there, I don't think the premise of your question is really correct, that it is more difficult for female members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to "control" who they are eternally sealed to. Definitely, as detailed in Section 38.5.1.2 of the handbook, there are differences in practices of sealings after divorce and after a spouses death (as detailed in 38.5.1.3) for men and women. Those sections are for living spouses, see 38.5.1.7 for the cases when both spouses are deceased. The exact reason for those differences is, as far as I know, not explicitly stated in the handbook or Church canon.


What does it mean that the "The Evil One snatches away what was sown in them." I have always been confused about what this means.

  Those who hear the message about the Kingdom but do not understand it are like the seeds that fell along the path.  The Evil One comes and snatches away what was sown in them.
  - Matthew 13:19

What does it mean that the Evil One snatches away what was sown in them?  It sounds like a violation of free will to me.

The defining characteristic about the path is that it is hard, like a sidewalk or road. People represented by the path are hard-hearted. Their hearts are not receptive to the word. They are the people described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-3.

  1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB)
  But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

What Satan "takes away" need not be their choice in the matter but the chance to think about the message. Among his tactics of distraction are pleasure, busyness, etc. His "taking" is also not against their will, but rather their acceptance of his leading. He has no real power over our choices except what we give him.

Matthew Henry refers to these people:

  Careless, trifling hearers, are an easy prey to Satan; who, as he is the great murderer of souls, so he is the great thief of sermons, and will be sure to rob us of the word, if we take not care to keep it.

Adam Clarke describes them as:

  A careless inattentive hearer is compared to the way side-his heart is an open road, where evil affections, and foolish and hurtful desires, continually pass and repass, without either notice or restraint. "A heart where Satan has" (as one terms it) "ingress, egress, regress, and progress: in a word, the devil's thoroughfare."


Is there any theological basis for the eating of lamb at Easter? I'm almost certain that the answer is no and that lamb is eaten mostly because it's available and tasty. However my attempts to Google this have met with limited success. I have found suggestions that the practice originated with the popes towards the end of the first millennium AD, and of course lots of articles suggesting a connection with Passover and with the lamb of God. However I have been unable to find any definitive statements from a reliable source.

I would be interested to if there is any religious significance to the eating of lamb, or whether it's one of those traditions that owe more to pragmatism than theology.

A footnote

Lee asks me to clarify my question. Suppose I was asking why Jews eat lamb at Passover, then the answer would be that it's mandated in the Torah. This would be a nice clear answer that is easily independently checked.

I want to know why Christians eat lamb at Easter, but I am fairly sure there is nothing in the Bible instructing them to do so. So I am anticipating that the answer might be along the lines of:

Because Pope Whoever adopted the practice in 962 and it has been a tradition ever since

or possibly:

There is no clear reason - it has just become popular due to the association of the Lamb of God with Jesus

Lesley mentions it became a tradition in the ninth century, but the linked article is very vague about who adopted the tradition and exactly when. If a more precise origin for the tradition can be identified I would be very interested to know it.

So when I ask about a theological basis I mean was there some occasion when Christians were instructed to eat lamb or when they were encouraged to eat lamb by an example set by some Christian authority? Or has the practice simply emerged without any clear origin?

It seems that the Catholic tradition of eating lamb at Easter was first documented in the 7th century:

  “The oldest prayer for the blessing of lambs can be found in the seventh-century sacramentary (ritual book) of the Benedictine monastery, Bobbio in Italy. Two hundred years later Rome had adopted it, and thereafter the main feature of the Pope's Easter dinner for many centuries was roast lamb.” - Easter Symbols and Food (Catholic Culture)

Eating lamb at this time of the year has religious significance, not only for Christians but also for Jews.  It goes back to the year 1446 B.C. on the night before Moses led his people out of Egypt.   To this day the Passover (Pesach in Hebrew) is the most widely celebrated Jewish festival where a lamb is roasted then eaten.  It is called the Passover because the angel of death passed over the homes of the Israelites who had obeyed God’s commands to kill a lamb and then mark their doorposts and lintels with its blood:

  “Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever.” (Exodus 12:21–24).

The theological significance for Christians is that on the night he was betrayed, Jesus and his apostles gathered together in a room in Jerusalem to prepare for the Passover.  As you have mentioned, there is a connection with Passover and Jesus, who is seen by Christians as the Lamb of God who was sacrificed and his blood shed to atone for the sins of the world.  That is the theology behind eating lamb on Nisan 14, which is the night Jesus was betrayed.

In Western countries, Passover is celebrated in early- to mid-April and is always close to Easter since that was the time when Jesus was crucified.  Passover and the story of the exodus have great significance for Christians, as Jesus is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7; Revelation 5:12). He was killed at Passover time, and the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Luke 22:7–8).  That is the theology behind the eating of lamb and it is traditional among Catholics and Protestants alike.


How did the Apostles die? For some reference as to why this question interests me, one of the evidences that is often given for proof that Jesus really did die and was resurrected is the change wrought in his original disciples.

Example: Key Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ -- Changed Lives of The Disciples

  Another evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the changed lives of
  the disciples. How do you account for the fact that before the
  resurrection they were frightened men and were hiding away in fear of
  their lives? After the resurrection they preached everywhere for no
  earthly benefit -- only suffering and martyrdom. The early believers
  were beaten, stoned, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified for
  sharing a lie -- if the resurrection had not occurred. The ultimate
  martyrdom of thousands of believers is one of the strongest proofs of
  the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since the argument is often used by Apologists (and is therefore of interest to me), I'd like to have it on the site as a reference to the claim.

So, how did the Apostles die?

Judas, of course, hung himself after betraying Jesus

James is the only other Apostle whose death is recorded in Scripture, in Acts 12:1-2

  It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to
  the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother
  of John, put to death with the sword.

The rest of the Apostles deaths are recorded outside of Scripture, and there is some uncertainty and discrepancy.

Andrew - The details are unclear, but the Catholic Encyclopedia lists this.

  It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman
  Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in Achaia, and that he was
  bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings.
  The cross on which he suffered is commonly held to have been the
  decussate cross, now known as St. Andrew's, though the evidence for
  this view seems to be no older than the fourteenth century. His
  martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D.
  60); and both the Latin and Greek Churches keep 30 November as his
  feast.

Bartholomew  - Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia

  The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in
  Armenia, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded,
  according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by
  order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of
  Armenia. On account of this latter legend, he is often represented in
  art (e.g. in Michelangelo's Last Judgment) as flayed and holding in
  his hand his own skin. His relics are thought by some to be preserved
  in the church of St. Bartholomew-in-the-Island, at Rome. His feast is
  celebrated on 24 August. An apocryphal gospel of Bartholomew existed
  in the early ages.

James, the son of Alpheus is listed in the Orthodox Wiki with the following:

  St James finished his apostolic work in the Egyptian city of
  Ostrachina, where he was crucified by the pagans.

while Foxes Book of Martyrs says this:

  At the age of ninety-four he was beat and stoned by the Jews; and
  finally had his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.

Peter - from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter
  laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended
  his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic
  activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his
  residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the
  chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are
  uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less
  well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this
  constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of
  Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

followed by several accounts, too numerous to list here.

Thomas - from the Orthodox Wiki

  Preaching the Gospel earned the holy Apostle Thomas a martyr's death.
  For having converted the wife and son of the prefect of the Indian
  city of Meliapur (Melipur), the holy apostle was locked up in prison,
  suffered torture, and finally, pierced with five spears, he departed
  to the Lord. Part of the relics of the holy Apostle Thomas are in
  India, in Hungary and on Mt. Athos.

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't so sure...

  On the other hand, though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in
  "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in
  such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later
  Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any
  adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed
  his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras,
  and there suffered martyrdom.

Philip  - Not much information exists on his death. What is given is always prefaced as "rumors".  Some accounts say hostile Jews had him tortured and then crucified upside down. Some sources have him being stoned.  The honest answer is "we just don't know".

Simon - From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The Abyssinians accordingly relate that he suffered crucifixion as the
  Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria.
  Where he actually preached the Gospel is uncertain. Almost all the
  lands of the then known world, even as far as Britain, have been
  mentioned; according to the Greeks, he preached on the Black Sea, in
  Egypt, Northern Africa, and Britain, while, according to the Latin
  "Passio Simonis et Judae" — the author of which was (Lipsius
  maintains) sufficiently familiar with the history of the Parthian
  Empire in the first century — Simon laboured in Persia, and was there
  martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in
  Colchis. According to Moses of Chorene, Simon met his death in
  Weriosphora in Iberia; according to the Georgians, he preached in
  Colchis. His place of burial is unknown.

Judas Thaddeus - From the orthodox Wiki:

  He was one of the Twelve Apostles (not to be confused with the
  Thaddeus of the Seventy Apostles) and after the Ascension he preached
  the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea, Syria, Arabia,
  Mesopotamia, and Armenia. While preaching in the area around Ararat he
  was captured by pagans, crucified and killed by being shot with
  arrows.

John was spared a violent death.

Matthias was sentenced to death and stoned.

Paul According to the Orthodox Wiki, Paul was martyred with the Apostle Peter under Nero by beheading.


What is the difference between humans as "image of God" and Jesus as "image of God"? What is the difference between humans as "image of God" and Jesus as "image of God" ?

Humans are God's image:

  Genesis 1:26-27

  26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
  so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the
  sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the
  creatures that move along the ground.”

  27 So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.

Jesus is the image of God

  Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
  of every creature   2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this
  world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not
  see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image
  of God.

Answer from a specifically Catholic viewpoint:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has many references to humans as images of God, but only a few that I have found to Jesus as the image of God:

At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

(paragraph 479)

Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father. ...
For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: ... as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature."

(paragraphs 240–241)
In distinction from this, humans are images of God in the sense that God has created them to be like him in certain ways:

Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator." He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake," and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.

(paragraph 356)
St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the meaning of "image" as it pertains to the Son of God in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 35, Article 2, and specifically discusses the difference between "image" as applied to humans and "image" applied to the Son.
To understand the structure of Aquinas' answer, understand that the Summa is not simply a book presenting Catholic Truth monolithically and without any discussion. Aquinas presents a question (usually a question that could be answered "Yes" or "No"), and comes up with reasons why it could be answered in one particular way (typically the "wrong" way from his viewpoint). These possible reasons are typically called "Objections". After he presents his answer, he must of course discuss why these objections are after all incorrect; and he does this in "replies to the objections".
Thus, in our particular case, Aquinas asks the question: "Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son?"; that is, "Should we be using this word to describe the Son of God in the first place?" One possible objection he comes up with, which applies to your question, is this:

Objection 3: Further, man is also called the image of God, according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and the glory of God." Therefore Image is not proper to the Son.

Aquinas concludes that "Image" is in fact applicable to the Son,

because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds.

That is, since the Son is the Word of God, he must be the same sort of being and have the same sort of characteristics (species) as God—thus it's appropriate to call him the Image of God. In responding to the objection dealing with man as "image of God", Aquinas replies,

The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God.

That is, humans are said to be "the image of God" because they are like God in certain ways (knowledge, understanding, free will, etc.); but the Son is said to be "the image of God [the Father]" because he is God—and has all the characteristics of God.


What does the moniker "the beloved disciple" imply about the marital status of John the Evangelist? John the Evangelist occasionally refers to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (Jn 12:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20). (Interestingly, no other evangelist makes such a reference.) Is it possible that Jesus had a special consideration for John because of that status? What is the Catholic view of it?

In Church Tradition, St. John was very young, perhaps an adolescent, when he first followed Jesus, and it is said he was never married.

In Chap. 16 That All May Be Saved, 266 in the book Friends of God, St. Josemaría Escrivá preaches:

  'Whereupon the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord.' Love, love is farsighted. Love is the first to appreciate
  kindness. The adolescent Apostle, who felt a deep and firm affection
  for Jesus, because he loved Christ with all the purity and tenderness
  of a heart that had never been corrupted, exclaimed: 'It is the
  Lord!'

  'Simon Peter, hearing him say that it was the Lord, girded up the
  fisherman's coat, and sprang into the sea.' Peter personifies faith.
  Full of marvellous daring, he leaps into the sea. With a love like
  John's and a faith like Peter's, what is there that can stop us?

In the Gospels there is another young man who Jesus looked at and loved, and that was the Rich Man, who had observed ALL the commandments from his youth.

Where can therefore conclude from the preaching of St. Josemaría and from the Gospels that St. John was the beloved disciple because he, like the Rich Young Man, was uncorrupted from his youth, but unlike the the Rich Young Man, St. John followed Jesus and was faithful to the end of his very long life.

Conclusion

From Catholic Tradition and from Scripture, one cannot imply anything about the marital status of St. John the Evangelist from the moniker "the beloved disciple" .


Who is the "Seed of the Serpent" spoken of in Genesis 3? In Genesis 3, God curses the serpent Satan in the following words:

  The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed
  are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field;
  pn your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your
  life; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
  your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you
  shall bruise him on the heel.”  Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

Most Christians understand the Seed of the woman to be referring to Jesus, who was uniquely born of woman.  However, it seems unclear who the seed of the serpent is.

To whom exactly is this referring?  I'm not sure a particular tradition matters here, but I'm most interested in a perspective that at the very least views the Scriptures as the divine Word of God (a biblical literalist), but again, I'm not sure other perspectives would really impact an understanding of this too much.

Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus said,

  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
  do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
  because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
  of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

  Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye
  not believe me?

  He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,
  because ye are not of God.

  John 8:44-47

Those who do not do the will of God, but live in sin are the devil's seed.

  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
  me scattereth abroad.

  Matthew 12:30

There are only two teams. Those who are the seed of the woman, and those who are the seed of the serpent. Those who are with God and those who are against God. There is no neutrality.


When was it established that there were 14,000 innocents martyred? In the Orthodox Church tradition, as I understand it, the Feast of the 14,000 Martyrs commemorates the deaths of the children massacred by Herod in what is otherwise known as the 'Massacre of the Innocents'. (Matt 2:16-18).

Scholars have argued that the number was likely to have been in the 10s or low 100s. Where did the figure of 14,000 first come from? Why that number in particular?

UPDATE

At Warren's request in the comment below, here are some sources:

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites 3 figures: 64k in the Syriac tradition, 144k in the medieval tradition, based on Apocalypse 14:3 and 14k in the Greek tradition.

It's not beyond the bounds of probability that somewhere along the way 144k was reduced to 14k due to either scribal error or conservative judgement. It would be nice to trace the sources involved to check this theory out.

As far as the lower numbers go, there are some secondary sources quoted here and in this paper by Mans. The latter mentions an early low count given by Basil of Seleucia, but neither provide an answer to my question.

Mans notes the mention of a mass grave, and it seems there was a skeleton of one of the holy innocents included in Frederick the Wise's collection of relics.

I'm afraid these sources do more to widen the scope of the question than to narrow it.

I think I can begin to offer an answer to this, though it's still bit's and pieces. Basically, my guess is sometime in the 4thC, (as far as it is possible to tell, given the fragmentary nature of the sources) though it is clear that some number or other seems to be assigned to the death toll relatively early on.

My reason for thinking this:

R. Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, 1999 (p. 205) talks about the "Byzantine Liturgy" first setting the number to 14, 000. Now, unfortunately I don't have full access to these books, so I can't work out the context in which "Byzantine Liturgy" is used. From some basic searches, it seems the Byzantine liturgy is sometimes mixed up with the conceptual apparatus of the Byzantine rites, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgys originate from writers like John Chrysostom, active in the latter half of the 4C. I would therefore suggest that the figure of 14,000, if it did become generally established in the West, would have probably become established shortly after the fall of Constantinople (15th C), as holy texts were sent west to keep them out of Muslim hands, but of course it's possible that it was established much earlier.

The purpose of such a number seems to be the obvious one, I'm afraid - a way of exacerbating the sense of Herod's selfishness and evil. It seems strange to modern ears, as 14,000 infants implies a pretty massive population for a provincial 1st century town like Bethlehem, and a systematic campaign of slaughter that would be materially, economically and organizationally difficult for this sort of society. Other numbers raise it above 100,000 though, so maybe the Byzantines weren't peculiar in setting a large figure.

Greek numerals seem to be decimal, so I don't seem any reason for rounding to 14,000. It seem either a relatively arbitrary choice of the author or, more likely in my view, a record of some oral tradition of the time.


How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Nicean Council? According to the Nicean Creed, Jesus Christ is said to be:

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same being (ὁμοούσιον) of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο

How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Council of Nicea?

This seems to have been prompted by Greek Philosophy beginning about 600 BC. This is most pronounced in the teachings of Plato, specifically his Theory of Forms in Plato's cave allegory.

Details

In Plato's theory, εἶδος (eidos) represents the "Visible Form" while, μορφή (morphē) represents the "shape". Additionally, within Greco-Roman philosophy, there were also the φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances" which underwent significant philosophical discussion.

In Plato's allegory, Plato asks Glaucon to imagine a prisoner in a cell in a dungeon or cave. Out of view of the prisoner is a light source. This light source illuminates an object - again out of view of the prisoner. The prisoner in the cave is only able to see the shadow cast by the object:

In terms of the Allegory, the εἶδος (eidos) is the object or vase while the μορφή (morphē) is the projected image of the object, or the shadow of the vase.

As Wikipedia notes,

  The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never

    ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....

  The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.

So in terms of God, the form of God as it appears to us (where we are the prisoner in Plato's cave) is the μορφή (morphē). This term acknowledges that our ability to view God is imperfect, and we are not capable of truly seeing God fully and directly. In trinitarian thought, the incarnation of Jesus might be thought of in some contexts as μορφή (morphē) - as Jesus, that was how God was able to appear to us.

Conversely, God's true form could be thought of as εἶδος (eidos). It holds the concept of God's true and actual form which we lack the ability and perspective to view properly due to our humanly limitations.

The Bible books of John and Philippians appear to reference this as do many other passages, I am sure:

  who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count
  equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:6 ESV).

  And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His
  voice you have never heard, his form [eidos] you have never seen,
  (John 5:37 ESV)

Similarly, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost might be thought to be the φαινόμενα (phainomena) of God.

So, how do we get from form to substance?

The obvious problem for the philosopher here is that if Jesus is merely the form (morphē) of God, then he is not truly God. If Jesus is form (morphē) then he is not εἶδος (eidos). If the holy spirit is a φαινόμενα (phainomena) then she is not εἶδος (eidos).

This presents a problem for the Trinitarian scripturally, with Jesus's claims to be God.

This can then easily be corrected by asking "well, what if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are different forms, but are all of the same substance?" What if Jesus is but is a different form (morphē) of God, but is ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) as God?

Vs-à-vis Gnosticism

While Aristotle was known for using the term οὐσία to describe his philosophical concept of Primary Substances, the term ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) is first used by the Gnostics to describe their doctrine of Emanations, a concept that supported the idea of Aeons - a Panentheistic idea that we all worship the same God which simply appears in different forms (but these gods are also ὁμοούσιος [Homooúsios] or of the same substance as God). In contrast Sabellianism believed that God was singular and not triune, while Gnosticism taught god was polyune. According to Sabellianism, God is only one indivisible being and nothing can be of the same substance as God - he can only be taking on a different role or mode when he acts as the Holy Spirit or as Jesus.

Conclusion

From this context, we can easily see how we arrive at the Arian Controversy after this issue was raised and brought to the public attention by the Gnostics and philosophers. With this background in place, it is clear that when the language of Plato's Theory of Forms is used to describe Jesus as a form of God, it lends itself to the idea that Jesus is not God, but is merely a shadow or projection of God - not God himself. The language and concept of οὐσία therefore became necessary for the Trinitarians to explain both how Jesus could be both a form of God and BE God.


What was the debate at the Reformation concerning "non extra carnem" vs. "extra calvinisticum"? In the debate concerning the "hypostatic union" and the "kenosis" the Lutheran church stood opposed to the majority position. I can not seem to find a good resource to explain the distinctives of the two sides of the issue.

As far as I am able to understand it, the debate was over the concept of whether or not the infinite divine nature of the Logos was contained or not contained in the finite body of Jesus.

I believe the majority opinion was that the finite can not contain the infinite, following the Chalcedonian formula of no mixture of the two natures. And the Lutheran belief is that the two natures cannot be sepparated.

I am confused as to the Latin "non extra carnem" not without incarnation. What is it that is "not without incarnation"? Also how does all of this relate to the "kenosis" or emptying (Phil.2:7) during Christ's earthly ministry as compared to after the assention? What is orthdoxy and when do we cross the line into heresy?

I'm not sure I understand the specifics of the issue exactly, but the Essay Library from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod often has good resources on questions like this.

A quick search turned up two essays that seem to speak to the questions:

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/PetersCalvin.pdf

and

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SchulzGenus.pdf

[EDIT]

Sorry for the format of my initial answer. I went through the first document a bit more carefully and it looks like the difference between the Calvinists and Lutherans was about how Christ's body was present in the Eucharist.

From the first article:

  Calvin’s main objection to the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament
  was that the Lutherans understood the body and blood of Christ to be
  present substantially...and would allow no figurative understanding of
  Jesus’ words of institution. The Lutherans believed that Christ’s true
  body was able to be simultaneously present on many altars by virtue of
  the communication of attributes...and therefore truly present under
  the physical elements of bread and wine.


Why (and when) did the Apostles stop requiring exactly twelve apostles? Why was James not replaced? In Acts 1:12-26 we read the story of how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. This kept the number of apostles at Twelve.

Sometime later, James, the brother of John was murdered (Acts 12:2). James was also one of the original twelve (Matthew 4:21) but unlike Judas, there is no record of him being replaced.

Why was this? Did the policy change?

Alternatively, if he was replaced but it was not recorded in the New Testament, when did the  "Twelve Apostle" policy end?

The Twelve Apostles elected by Jesus were not meant to live forever and rule the earth. They represented the fathers of Christianity and the church.

Judas was a betrayer. He betrayed his master Jesus, which is the same as betraying the whole group of twelve, and it implies that he is no longer a part of the group of the Twelve Apostles. Judas deserted the company of Twelve. It was now necessary to replace the office of Judas, possibly because they believed that 12 was the divinely appointed number by Jesus Christ and it should be maintained. The number twelve might also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, it seems like it was necessary to continue the tradition of the number Twelve.

The death of James did not end his position in the Twelve as he was not a betrayer like Judas. In fact, all the apostles (according to tradition) were martyred. They are now all dead and probably are now in Heaven, occupying the Twelve Thrones reserved for them in Heaven (my speculation).

And, Jesus did not elect Twelve Popes, rather Twelve Apostles.


Authenticity of the Pontius Pilate's letter to Tiberius Caesar? Just looking to find out if this alleged Letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is authentic or a later forgery? I don't care how it physically describes Jesus, just want to know how it was found and why it's claimed authentic or not. Thanks.

I would say probable forgery. First searching for the letter before a link/source was added revealed at least 3 letters, each is written differently:

Letter of Pilate to Tiberius 1 - Unable to verify by finding an image of the original Greek manuscript
Letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentions Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C. but initial searches reveal nothing, and some sites say mention:

  "The Library of Congress has received a number of inquiries over the years about a purported letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar concerning Jesus Christ. The Library does not have such a letter in its collections".

Fraud by Pilate Letter - although this seems to be claiming the letter is false (I google translated it), the text of this letter is unique from the other two. This also mentions a fiction book, Letters of Pontius Pilate, published in 1928 which may be the basis for many of the supposed letters that mention Jesus
Historic Letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentioned in OP question mentions it is in the British Museum but searches on that site and of the British Museum Library reveal nothing

I've found a supposed response from the British Museum

  There are no surviving original letters by Herod or Pontius Pilate, to each other or to anyone else. Any manuscripts of them which do exist are forgeries or much later copies. A Syriac MS in the British Library Oriental Collections (reference number Add. 14609) contains a 6th or 7th Century copy of the letters. Here is the catalogue description of the MS:

  THE DOCTRINE Of St. Peter;-The life of St. Anthony, by St. Athan-
  asius;-Account of the Monks in Egypt;-Life of Serapion;-
  Letter of Herod to Pilate, and of Pilate to Herod;-The Recogni-
  tions of St. Clement. On vellum, of the vith or viith century.
  Quarto. [14,609.]

  There are many modern texts and English translations of the letters, including the one on the website link you gave.

  I hope this helps.

  Yours sincerely,

  Zoë Stansell 2

  MSS Enquiries

In favor of the a letter from Pilate concerning Jesus is this book, Archaeological Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews by William Dennes Mahan, page 205. This and other sources might be considered pseudipigrapha and Apocrypha.

One to thing to remember is that Pontius Pilate was a Roman prefect for the province of Judaea under Empereor Tiberius Caesar. There probably was correspondences, reports, and/or letters between them.

To answer the second question there is an article talking about when one letter was discovered in Liverpool in 1964 and goes into detail on why he believes it to be a fraud.

Emphasis added by me

1 source is Ante-Nicene Fathers page 459, which is also in English

2 She appears to actually work at the British Library, see the author


Resources to learn about Bible canonization I am interested in researching the history behind the Bible's canonization. I am particularly interested in writings of early historians, or books that compile facts from these historians in an unbiased manner. Secular works would be great if they exist. I am trying to avoid books about the authority/infallibility/etc of the Bible. Where should I start?

Edit:

New Testament canon is my focus, though I'm interested in Old Testament as well.

Edit 2:

Secular works are great, but that's not to say I'm uninterested in the nonsecular.

For a good brief overview, Wikipedia has the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon that may prove useful.

Some Authors to Consider

If you want a respected secular scholar, Bart Ehrmann's Misquoting Jesus is probably your best bet. I'm not endorsing what he says, and I'm not going to say he is unbiased (he has explicitly rejected his Christian faith and openly wishes others would do the same), but he is well respected and has a good grasp of the chain of events.

In addition to his book, the Teaching Company has a [series of lectures he did on the New Testament and on the Church Fathers (the documents, not the people!) which illustrate the early church development of practice. The "History of Jesus to Constantine" and "Lost Christianities" in particular would probably give you the secular development case the best.

In contrast, Daniel B. Wallace will give a more orthodox understanding of why particular books were accepted, and lend credence to the traditional canon.

A Breif Overview

In general, the best way to understand the "process of canonization" is to understand the unique contribution of each book in the canon to the Bible as a whole. Remember, there was no committee that sat down and said, "This is the authoritative list, and everything else is just a book!" Rather, over time, there was a general consensus amongst Christians as to what really was Scripture, and what wasn't.

Marcion would be a good example. He was one of the first to compile a "canon," and his consisted solely of the letters of Paul, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered the Old Testament to speak of a different god, and thought it useless.  What Marcion, thought, however, wasn't nearly as important as the reaction of the majority of Christians in contrast.  They said, "No, the Old Testament is part of who God is." The general consensus that Marcionism is heresy was pretty well established by about 200AD, and led most then to accept that the Old Testament is part of the canon.

Similar processes occurred around the adoption of the Johnanine corpus - the Gospel, the letters, etc... Likewise, the Gospel of Thomas - purported collection of 115 of Jesus' sayings - proved to be more Gnostic than Christian, and so it was rejected.

The key point is that all of this happened over time.  It isn't until Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367 that we even have the first "complete" canon listed anywhere - and Patristic scholars continued to quote other works for some time as well.

Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered "more important" than others.  If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others.  David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much.  And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society.  Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others "should be read." The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.

In the end, Why did the canon close? is really the only remaining question, and that has already been answered elsewhere on the site.


How did Christians of WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation? I do not know of a single time period where Christians did not believe that "the end time was near."

For many people in the centuries immediately after Christ's death, it's not unthinkable that they would believe "Well, Christ's returned to heaven; he probably just has to take care of some work, and will soon return for us."

For us, we look at the Book of Revelations -- and we say

Hey, we have the internet -- thus having the tech to fulfill the live stream of the death of the two witnesses.
The Mark of the Beast? Clearly we're moving towards a society with embeddable chips; so all our credit card, identity, etc ... will be some embedded chip -- and without it, people will not be able to buy / sell.
Earthquakes / wars ... destabilizing in the middle east: yep, yep, yep.

Question:

How did most Christians during WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation? Were most of them convinced that the end war near? Given the sheer brutality of the wars, if one squinted at the wraths of God poured out and interpreted them symbolically, perhaps they could have been made to match up with the events happening at the time.

While there must have been groups of Christians that understood these times as you suggest, the time leading up to the world wars actually was a time of great progress and optimism. While there certainly were premillennial groups, much of mainline Christianity during the 17-19th centuries was actually post- or a- millennial; that is, many believed that things would continue to get better and better until everyone on earth became Christians, then Christ would return. A nice example of this comes from my own tradition, whence the serial publication The Millennial Harbinger comes.

The increase in popularity of premillenialism (at least as it is commonly expressed nowadays) was actually the result of the great Wars. The wars called into question whether or not things actually were getting better—many argued that they weren't. So instead of thinking things would get better prompting Jesus' return, many people began to assume things would actually get worse, and would only get better by the direct intervention of God—hence the great tribulation, rapture, etc. of modern premillennialism. Interestingly, this falls nearly perfectly in line with the Apocalyptic movement in Judaism during the Second Temple Period out of which Christianity grew.


Jesus said no one had gone into heaven except the Son of Man, but what about Elijah? I've found two verses which seem to be contradictory, so I'm hoping someone can explain how they can be reconciled.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. (John 3:13, NIV)
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. (2 Kings 2:11, NIV)

Jesus was well-versed in the Old Testament, so why would he say what he did in John 3:13?
Is it possible that this was just a nasty tornado and Elijah was just not to be found (or elaborate metaphor for a "whirlwind" of an attack, ripping up dust like fire, from enemies and he was killed or kidnapped and killed)?
Note that the NLT adds "and returned":

No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. (John 3:13, NLT)

But I don't know warranted this addition is, as no other translations have it.

The Greek text of John 3:13 states,

ΙΓʹ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ TR, 1550

which may be translated as,

13 And no one ascended into heaven except he who descended out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

There are some who believe that Jesus is speaking in John 3:13. Others believe that the author of the fourth gospel (who many assume to be a certain “John”) is speaking. However, identifying the speaker is not essential for the purpose of this discourse. Rather, we shall focus on the issue of the Lord Jesus Christ being the only one to ascend to heaven.
Those familiar with the Old Testament know that both Elijah the prophet and Enoch ascended to heaven before dying. Yet, John 3:13 states that no man ascended to heaven but the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. How, then, do we reconcile this supposed contradiction?
The Lord Jesus Christ ascended (ἀνέβη) to heaven and descended (κατέβη) out of heaven under his own power and volition. On the other hand, individuals such as Enoch and Elijah were taken or brought up to heaven by God.
Regarding Enoch, Gen. 5:24 states,

24 And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
כד וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֵינֶנּוּ כִּי לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים

Enoch, being a man, could not and did not ascend under his own power and volition. Rather, God took him into heaven.
Regarding Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1 states,

1 And it came to pass, when Yahveh caused Elijah to ascend to heaven in a whirlwind, that Elijah and Elisha went from Gilgal.
א וַיְהִי בְּהַעֲלוֹת יַהְוֶה אֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּֽסְעָרָה הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֵלִיָּהוּ וֶאֱלִישָׁע מִן הַגִּלְגָּל

The infinitive הַעֲלוֹת (haʿalot) is conjugated in binyan Hifʿil, and thus means “to cause to ascend (go up).”
Gesenius wrote,1

The Hebrew text literally states that Yahveh caused Elijah to ascend to heaven, or in more polished English, Yahveh brought/ took Elijah up into heaven. Like Enoch, Elijah could not and did not ascend under his own power and volition.
Thus we see that in both cases of Elijah and Enoch, these individuals were taken up into heaven by God and not under their own power or volition. On the contrary, the Lord Jesus Christ descended2 from heaven (upon his incarnation) and then later ascended to heaven (after his resurrection) under his own power and volition.

References
Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.
Footnotes
1 p. 631
2 Furthermore, no mere man has ever descended from heaven. This is conclusive evidence of the supernatural nature (i.e., deity) of the Lord Jesus Christ.


If the Bible is open to interpretation, how does one know which one is right? Often times when I cite a particularly egregious passage from the Bible in an argument with a Christian, they just shrug and say it's not meant be taken literally, that it's parable, or worse - that they don't follow it because they consider it outright wrong.

If scripture can have multiple, and possibly conflicting interpretations, how does one know which one is the right one? And why did this happen in the first place? ie: why does His word need to be interpreted?

You have asked at least three distinct questions in your question... I'm going to answer the one that I think is the most directly answerable, and hope that it satisfies the others as well.

Why does the Bible need to be interpreted?

Every written work must be interpreted.

When most people I know ask questions like this, what they're really asking is, "Why wasn't the Bible written in clear, easy-to-understand language, for someone living in my modern, Western culture to understand without any special effort?"

And when phrased that way, the answer becomes rather obvious:

The Bible was not written with modern, Western culture in mind.  Nor was any other ancient text, religious or otherwise.

In fact, neither was any of Mark Twain's work.

When we read any literature, we must consider the culture in which it was written, and the audience to whom it was written.

Further, we have to recognize the various genres of literature contained within the Bible.  It contains poetry, prose, letters, history, law, genealogies, and likely other categories I'm forgetting at the moment.  Each of these must be interpreted differently as well--and always with a mind toward the culture that wrote it, and the audience it was written to.


Has there ever been an Eastern Catholic Pope (Post-Schism)? Every Pope that I've heard of has been from the Latin rite/the Roman Catholic Church. Is it possible for the Pope to be a bishop from an Eastern Catholic church instead? For example I reckon it'd be really cool to have a Pope from the Syro-Malabar Church or the Ethiopian or Eritrean Churches, or the Byzantine Melkite Church.

I'm wondering if this has happened at any time historically and if not, why not? Is there anything preventing an Eastern Catholic bishop from being elected Pope?

If an Eastern bishop were to be elected Pope, could they celebrate their native liturgical rite regularly in Vatican City? Or would they be forced into using the Roman Rite most of the time? My understanding is that this is possible because the Pope is considered omniritual: he can celebrate whatever liturgy he wants and is not tied down to the Latin Rite.

As a historical footnote, I'll point out that before the great schism there was a period of church history where the Popes were all imported from Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, and Byzantine Sicily. However this was before the great schism and so is not as remarkable as it seems at first glance because Eastern and Western Christianity were united at the time. See here: Byzantine Papacy

There are really only two requirements for becoming pope: being male and being baptized into the Catholic Church.

  Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law

Could an Eastern Rite cardinal be elected pope? Yes, it could happen and a pope is free to make changes to reflect his heritage, but we would have to wait and see if this ever happens.

  When Eastern Rite cardinals meet with other cardinals or con-celebrate the liturgy, they generally wear their own vestments. On the other hand, if a bi-ritual priest celebrates the liturgy, not native to him, he uses the other rite's vestments. Someone elected pope is the Bishop of Rome, so presumably he would celebrate henceforth as Bishop of Rome, i.e., Latin Rite. Since we haven't run into this situation in modern times (and probably don't have sufficient records when it did happen, which I think it did) they would probably have to make some new decisions about it, much like they did with Pope Benedict's resignation.

  My guess is he would wear Western vestments when celebrating a Latin-rite Mass. As for his white cassock, I'm not sure. On the one hand that's kind of unique to the pope and in a class by itself, but then again it is based on Latin-rite dress.

  Maybe the pope would like to retain some of his Eastern heritage. I don't know, I think that would be up to him. - Ask A Catholic

Update: Thanks to  @AthanasiusOfAlex and his comment: There seems to have been no Eastern Catholic pope. "Looking at the list of popes since 1054, the answer appears to be “no”."


What is the meaning of God's omni-powers? It is a common understanding among Christians I know that God has these four attributes:

Omnipresence
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnibenevolence

A grammatical interpretation would explain them as unlimited or maybe absolute, but I'm interested in the biblical approach to this matter. What is the meaning attributed to each of these "powers" in the Bible?

I'm sure there are other references, but for example:

Omnipresence: Psalm 139:7-12 describes God being everywhere.

Omnipotence: I can't think of a Bible verse that says, "God is omnipotent". But Deut 4:37 (and many similar verses) talk about God's "might power". Gen 17:1 and others refer to God as "Almighty". Job 11:7b "Can you find out the limits of the Almighty?"

Omnibenevolence: Luke 18:19 "So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.'"

I can't think of a verse for omniscience off the top of my head.

Omniscience: OT reference Psalm 69:5 - if He knows all our sins, He knows it all
and NT reference 1st John 3:20 comes right out and says that "...God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."


Has there ever been a saint who has had their sainthood revoked due to falsification of their life details or the miracles leading to canonization? Has there ever been a person who has been canonized as a saint, but later had their sainthood revoked because irrefutable evidence came to light that the person was not the upstanding Christian that everyone thought (perhaps they were an unbeliever or a heretic) or the miracles that were associated with the saint's canonization were determined to be faked?

There are early saints that have been recognized as likely "pious fables" and therefore removed from the liturgical calendar, but none that have been declared to be outright falsehoods. In the modern times, the Church is much better about authenticating miracles.

Being a saint simply means existing in Heaven with God. There are certainly many people that have achieved sainthood who are not formally canonized by the Church. Similarly, even if the life events or miracles attributed to an early saint were exaggerated, that does not mean that person is not in Heaven with God, ergo, a saint.


Is it biblical to burn the heretics? This article has a list of people burned as heretics by the Church in the past. Is there any Biblical basis for burning the heretics? Which specific verse was used for the  judgement on the heretics, which called for the burning at the stake?
I guess, this verse might have influence on the method of execution, if interpreted wrongly.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do
nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is
thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the
fire and burned. (John 15:5-6)

Couldn't the Church simply ignore the heretics? Is there any command in the Bible to burn the heretics? If such command is there, should we continue to burn the heretics in the Church today?

There is no verse in the New Testament stating that we need to punish "heretics". Quite the contrary.
In James 4:12 (NIV) it says:

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?

Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV):

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The parable of the tares among the wheat could be applied to this problem. Matthew 13:24-30 (NIV):

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Also, when Peter lopped off the ear of the slave of the high priest (Matthew 26:51-52), Jesus said:

"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

I know that the context is different, but it shows how the kingdom of heaven is not a militant kingdom.


If one abandons his faith in Catholicism and becomes an Atheist, could he still go to heaven? If one has been raised a Catholic for all their life, and have just never found meaning in it, and then plans on becoming an Atheist  after a difficult conversation with their parents.
I would like to know, if God was real, could they still go to heaven, even though they have left their faith and turned away from Christianity?

Introduction (personal opinion)
Before presenting the Catholic Church's teaching on abandoning a person's childhood Catholic faith, I would like to review the connection of all elements in your question: God, heaven, the Catholic church, Atheism, the meaning of Catholic practice, and the fear of not going to heaven if Atheism turns out to be false.
God, as understood by Christians, is a good and loving Father who wants to save us from the power of sin by sending His Son Jesus to die on the cross for us as a sacrifice of love, a tangible sign so we can believe His ultimate intention for us: to enter heaven.  That is the Gospel.
So God invites us to live in His house: heaven.  But only people with hearts that fit for heaven can enter since heaven is the place for love.  It makes sense, because to flourish in heaven we need to have the hearts that have the same character as God: loving.  Do you think entering heaven is automatic?  Are our hearts ready to enter heaven today?  Since God gives us free will, we have a choice on how to shape our hearts:

To the Christian standard, the way God created us to be
To the standard that we create for ourselves, because that's what Atheism basically is.

We also need to be aware that there is an enemy!  It's not just us and God.  This enemy is Satan and his minions, the one who tempts us to sin, the one who tirelessly tries to prevent us from entering heaven through lies such as false religions and false belief systems.  Satan is the prince of the world for now until he is completely defeated at the end of the world.  We now live in enemy occupied territory.  Satan's main mission is to prevent us from shaping our hearts to God's standard by enticing us to create our own standard, like Atheism!
Can Atheism prepare our hearts for the Christian heaven?  Remember, heaven is the Christian God's house.  But Atheism means believing that God doesn't exist. If through living our lives we shape our hearts as though God doesn't exist, it's like living in the same house with our parents but we:

never say anything to them
never ask them what we can do to please them, and
set our own rules while living in THEIR house!

A heart that habitually ignores God instead of loving God.  Does it fit?  It simply doesn't fit !!
The only fitting choice is to prepare our hearts according to Christianity, God's standard, the owner of heaven.  That is why God establishes the Catholic Church on earth, a stronghold within the enemy occupied territory.  The Catholic Church's main mission is to help us prepare our hearts for heaven in the following ways:

reconcile people to God (baptism, confession)
teach the truths about God (catechism)
nourish the faithful spiritually (mass, prayer, eucharist)
help us to be more loving (church life)

The teaching of the Catholic Church (presented below) is meant for the discernment of our true state of heart, to help us discover the sins of our hearts and to help us grow in our love for God and our neighbors.  It is not the Church who sends a person to heaven or to hell; the Church is merely a reliable guide, a "truth telling thing" as the great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton put it, to counter Satan, the Father of Lies.  The Catholic priests help administer the sacraments throughout our earthly journey to heaven: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion & Confession, Marriage / Ordination (optional), and Last Rites (a combination of Confession + Anointing of the sick + final Communion) just before we die.  If our destination is the Christian heaven, what's the point of leaving the Catholic Church?
Finally, let's talk about fear.  There is a bad fear and a good fear.  Bad fear is doing things only because we don't want to be punished.  We do them simply because other people (like our parents) tell us to do them.  Or we do them without love and without understanding why we do them.  Bad fear is a fear of servitude or slavery, which God wants to turn into a good fear.  Good fear is respect and gratitude for God expressed in good actions dedicated as an offering to Him.  We are fearful for going astray because this will grieve God's heart who wants us to safely complete our earthly journey to enter His home: heaven.  It's like being fearful to hurt people who love us, like our parents, who only want good things for us. Good fear also means freely choosing and submitting to the standard that God sets for us (Christianity), because the standard will sets us more free to love Him and leads us to a more meaningful life, on earth as well as in heaven.
Teaching of the Catholic Church
From your description, since the person seems to be

a baptized Catholic who
voluntarily (without external threat) and
knowingly (after consulting parents, who I presume would guide him/her in the Catholic Faith, and therefore is no longer ignorant; whether partially / fully ignorant it's hard to determine)
leaves the Church and
joins the creed of Atheism

then from the point of view of the Catholic Church the person has committed at least a material sin of heresy which could develop into the formal variety, and even worse, to the sin of apostasy (who leaves not just the Catholic Church but abandons Christ Himself!).
If either heresy or apostasy are committed with full knowledge and full intentionality (which is hard to determine because we cannot see into the person's heart completely) then it is a grave matter and therefore a mortal sin, and thus incurs automatic latae sententiae excommunication.  Excommunication does not mean that the Catholic church sends a person to hell (see good explanation here).  One must also satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in Canon Law Code 1321-1323.  But if this person's act of becoming an atheist can with certainty be classified as a mortal sin, this person will not go to heaven.
About your subquestion "if God was real, could they still go to heaven", this reminds me of Pascal's wager that "humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not".  Adapted to this context:

If the Christian God exists then the above criteria of entering heaven applies
If the Christian God does NOT exist, that means there is no Christian heaven to enter either

The bottom line (quoted from ChurchPOP website article Abandoning Christ: The Forgotten Sins of Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism):

If you are a baptized Christian, you should hold fast to the teachings of the Church, keep practicing the faith, and maintain unity with your bishop and especially the Pope.
Doing anything less is abandoning Christ and his Church!

My personal advice:

Consult the Catholics you can trust, like your priest, deacon, catechist / RCIA team, or knowledgeable members of the parish.
Bring out the specific elements of Catholicism that are objectionable to you and do additional research.  There are a LOT of excellent Catholic defense of the many varieties of atheism in quality websites, books, and journals.
The most common variety of atheism resulted from lack of meaning is because of Nietzsche's pronouncement that God is "dead" (irrelevant) and developed further by Albert Camus who taught that there is no objective meaning in life.  The great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton's response to Nietzsche can be read here while Camus's error, which in effect is the soul's destruction, has been wonderfully exposed as a logical consequence of existentialism here.
Many atheists, (such as Edward Feser), have converted into becoming Catholics so they may likely have already considered the reasons for you to become atheist and refuted them.
Therefore, please BE SAFE and remain a fully practicing Catholic while doing the research.  Asking questions is not sin.  Having doubts are not sin either, but ACTING on them (by rejecting the Faith) is.

Variations
The answer above is based on a case where all the elements identified above are present in the act.  The Catholic Church also considers a variety of cases when only some elements apply.  Examples:

A person who has never been presented with the Gospel (so has never rejected the Gospel), who therefore out of ignorance holds a false idea of God (like Atheism), may still go to heaven.  See the Catholic Answer website article on How Can Atheists Go To Heaven?.  But in the OP's case, this option is most likely no longer available.
Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism can only be be committed "after the reception of baptism".  Therefore, people without valid baptism cannot commit them.  (Most Protestant churches's baptism are valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)
A non-Catholic Christian (like a Protestant) who has true faith in Christ is still technically classified as a material heretic but out of charity, the term heretic is now used only for those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth (thus guilty in their conscience before God).  Therefore, Protestants are no longer automatically culpable heretic.
Members of the Protestants and Orthodox churches are technically only materially schismatic so they are not culpably schismatic nor are they now called schismatic out of charity.
A Catholic who out of ignorance holds beliefs contrary to the teaching of the church is a material, not formal (culpable) heretic.
A Catholic who simply abandons the practice (i.e. no longer going to church) but doesn't intentionally repudiate the faith is not an apostate.  But the moment he joins another religion (including falling into unbelief like Atheism), he becomes an apostate.

References used for the answer above

A 2001 EWTN article published in Catholic Culture website article Heresy, Schism and Apostasy - Definitions by Colin B. Donovan, STL cites the Catechism and the Canon Law during a discussion of the difference of "heresy", "schism", and "apostasy" and divides each into material or formal sin, linking it with the principle of invincible ignorance, culpability, excommunication & other ecclesiastical sanctions, and other related topics.

A ChurchPOP website article Abandoning Christ: The Forgotten Sins of Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism explaining further what does it mean for those who are guilty of heresy, apostasy, and schism.

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? by apologist Dave Armstrong who covers the Biblical basis for excommunication, contrasting it with anathema.  He also explains how neither implies condemnation of people to hell but "to warn the sinner of the danger he runs of incurring eternal ruin, unless he repent of his sin", again with Biblical precedent.

CCC 2087-2089 (within the article about the 1st commandment) distinguishes "voluntary doubt", "involuntary doubt", "incredulity", "heresy", "apostasy", and "schism":

Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"⁹ as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.¹⁰  Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."¹¹

Catholic Essentials website article on Apostasy quoted a definition from the 1951 Catholic Dictionary, distinguishing 3 kinds: apostasy from the Faith, abandonment of the practice of the Faith, and presumption of Apostasy:

Apostasy from the Faith is the act by which a baptized person, after possessing the true Christian faith, totally rejects it. The complete abandonment  of the practice of the Faith is NOT apostasy, or even presumption of Apostasy. A person is an apostate whether he joins a non-Christian religion, as Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or falls into unbelief, atheism, materialism, agnosticism, rationalism, indifferentism, or "free-thought". Apostates from the Faith incur excommunication ipso facto, and other penalties"


What is the mainline Protestant understanding of "unceasing prayer"? The Bible speaks about this concept of unceasing prayer, to give some examples that seem to talk about thus:
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.),

Other verses: Mark 13:32-37; Matthew 26:40-41;

I've heard Eastern-Orthodox priests as having  literal interpretation of this idea. Saying that we should follow the example of hermits, retreat in the wild and pray unceasingly.

I find that to be a bit extreme and wondered how do Lutherans, Reformed, Anglican and other mainline Protestants interpret these verses?

I suspect that differences of opinion might extend all the way to the individual level, rather than being settled upon by any particular denomination.

(So: what do you think it means?)

Inasmuch as I've grown up in the larger protestant tradition, I suppose my opinion might be worth more than nothing, so here goes: it sounds like an attitude to me; the continual practice of keeping short accounts with God, just another angle on loving God and loving your neighbor, just as Philippians 2 is an angle on the same.

I could be wrong, and I'm not a professional, so...


Arguments For/Against Spiritual Uses of Cannabis in Christianity? As I am aware most Christians regard the physical and spiritual effects of Cannabis as the same as use of alcohol for intoxication, and that its use is not permitted by their doctrines.
Contrarily, some Christian denominations such as the Rastafari and Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church not only allow its use but strongly suggest its use for meditation and communication with God. Now, I realize that Cannabis use is a controversial topic for many devout Christians and many will not give it a second thought as to whether it has any place in worship. Through some research I have landed upon the following article regarding its use in the time of Jesus: Jesus 'healed using cannabis'. Cannabis is often referenced in the Bible as Calamus (hebrew 'קנה-בשם' or "kaneh bosm"), as in the following scripture:

"Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty" (Exodus 30:23).
"Vedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares; massive iron, cassia, and calamus, were among thy merchandise" (Ezekiel 27:19).
"Spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices" (Song of Songs 4:14).

There is no debate that Cannabis was used in the time of the Hebrews and throughout the time of Jesus Christ.
I am neither for nor against the use of Cannabis, I only wish to see arguments for/against its use as an aid in spiritual connection with God and developing a deeper understanding of his Word.
Any insights on this?

There is no Biblical argument for any food or drink of any type to 'aid in spiritual connection with God' or in 'developing a deeper understanding of his Word'. However, as you already noticed, the Bible does oppose drinking too much alcohol.

  9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9–10)

Alcohol is an interesting subject because it shows that the Bible is not unreasonable or defensive. On one hand, it assigns the destination of hell for all drunkards, yet a little wine it does not condemn.  It is natural therefore that there is no need to concern ourselves with this controversial debate among some scholars, whether there was some Cannabis in the Holy Oil, or whether there was not. It has no bearing on real life.

The Holy Oil was simply used for anointing physical things in the temple services. The oil was not smoked; it was just dabbed on the utensils used in the service. It was not even allowed to be put "on men’s bodies". It was also commanded that they "do not make any oil with the same formula." (Exodus 30:32) So actually, if there was some Cannabis in the oil, the only bearing it would have on life in ancient Palestine, is that it would prevented a wider use of Cannabis.

The point here is that there is no evidence Cannabis was ever used in a manner that would have any effect on the mental state of the Hebrew worshipper. If it did, the Bible would condemn it just as excessive alcohol was condemned.

The Bible looks on the subject with pity, rather than with anything else.  Basically the Bible say's one is to be pitied, if one allows mind-altering drugs to make them into a lazy fool.

  20 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. (Proverbs 23:20–21, NIV)

  Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1, NIV)


What is the biblical basis for the claim that Jesus took on the sins of mankind? It's been said that there is no biblical basis for the assumption that Jesus ever took on the sins of mankind, before, during or after his death. What is the biblical proof that Jesus did take on the sins of mankind?
There's been some really great answers here but I'm looking for some more firsthand proof, such as Matthew 5:17–18

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
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.

Here Matthew quotes Jesus. Jesus fulfills the mosaic laws which also includes the sacrificial laws. The one perfect sacrifice that would forgive the sins of mankind past, present and future.

I believe that this Bible verse confirms that Jesus took on the sins of mankind.

John 1:29 ESV

  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


When did the older English spelling of the endings of Isaiah and Elijah stop being used in the Catholic Church? I was reading Archbishop Fulton Sheen's Life of Christ and he always refers to Isaiah and Isaias and Elijah as Elias.

I know that's one of the traditional English spellings, but when did it change for Catholics at Mass (at least in Latin translated Missals) and in other liturgical use?

Not on topic here, but well appreciated would be an explanation of how one could come to pronounce -jah as -ias.

I think you'll find the question is not how -jah came to be -ias as how -ias came to be -jah.

For example you could look at the Greek rendering of the name Isaiah as see that it is Ἠσαΐας (pronounced Ēsaïās) which is a pretty clear indication that at one significant point in history the name was pronounced closer to the old/alternate English rendering of Isaias.

In general you will find names mutilated morphing from language to language and in a language over time as it gets to some persons ears and doesn't sound quite right. It's quite possible that at some point an Englishman's ear told him that ending a name with -ias sounded foreign and so he adapted it, however...

Pushing farther back however you will find the Hebrew name was יְשַׁעְיָהוּ (Yəšạʻyā́hû) so it might be that the more modern English rendition is actually an attempt to render an English name closer to the original rather than following the long tail of languages in between.

A similar story can be told for Elijah who's Hewbrew name would be אליהו (Eliyahu) but in much more modern usage is rendered إلياس, in Arabic (Pronounced Ilyās).

As for WHEN the change happened, it would see that for Isaiah, Isias might actually be a trendy thing started by a couple of writers in the mid 1900's. However the majority usage dating back to at least the 1600's KJV text is undoubtedly "Isaiah".


Can a Christian choose to walk away from his or her salvation? There is a plethora of verses that say that people can not cause a saved Christian to lose his salvation, such as

  John 10:29 (NLT)

  29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of a Christian choosing to turn away from God, as in

  Hebrews 6:4-6 (NLT)

  4 For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— 6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

So, my question is: is it possible for a saved Christian to choose to walk away from Christ and thus lose their salvation?

Related:

Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?
Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]
How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

While this question is rather similar to others, I think it's focused enough to not count as a duplicate. In particular, this one is focused on the ability or inability of the Christian to choose, not so much whether losing one's salvation is possible.

This isn't a question that can be resolved indisputably here, as there are different views amont Christians about this. These views are generally in a range of:

Pelagianism - the idea that a man's salvation is an act of his free will only.
Synergysm - the idea that a man needs grace, but has to freely cooperate with it.
Irresistible grace - that grace saves even against human will.

Orthodox christians put more emphasis on free will than Roman Catholics (they are even sometimes called semi-pelagians by them). Jansenism (vide Blaise Pascal) and Calvinism share a belief in irresistible grace, while other Reformed churches vary here (somewhere between Calvin and RC doctrine).