How did Gideon win his battle against the Midianites? In the Old Testament, an army of some 15,000 Midianites invaded Israel for the purpose of "hijacking" their food supplies.

A judge named Gideon called the Israelis "to the colors." Some 30,000 showed up to form an army that was probably large enough to defeat the Midianites.

Gideon was told by God to "downsize" his army by telling the volunteers that anyone who was afraid or "indisposed" to fight could go home. About two-thirds, or 20,000 did so, leaving Gideon with about 10,000 men, a smaller, but more "select" army than the Midianites had, because it had "sluffed" its weakest men.

God further told Gideon to take his remaining troops to the river to drink. Most drank by burying their face in the water, but a few knelt, and used their hands to lift water to their mouths. Gideon was told to use only the latter few, some 300 in all. These were supposedly the equivalent of "special forces" picked by God.

When they went to battle, they used unusual "shock and awe" tactics, blowing trumpets, flashing torches, and throwing stones noisily, rather than standard assault tactics using sword and spear.

Were these tactics, and the selection of 300 "picked" troops (1% of the original 30,000, 2% of the 15,000 Midianites, 3% of the later 10,000) at the heart of a "faith based" military operation? Gideon won, of course, but what was God's plan in using the special methods that He did?

God's plan had very little to do with the tactics employed.  Indeed, God's purpose in downsizing Gideon's army was specifically to de-emphasize the role of man in the conflict.  To wit, Judges 7:2 states:

  The Lord said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’

As to the method employed, Judges 7:22 answers this - God used the confusion in the ranks of the Midianite army to set the Midians against themselves.  It is written:

  22 When they blew the 300 trumpets, the Lord set every man's sword against his comrade and against all the army. And the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah,[a] as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath.

2 Chronicles reports a similar thing when the Ammonites and the Moabites rose up against Israel under King Jehosophat. Jerusalem itself was besieged, and there was famine so great that women resorted to cannibalism.  When the Lord hear the Israelites' cry, however, he chose to rescue them.  The text states:

  20:22 As soon as they began singing, the Lord confused the enemy camp, 23 so that the Ammonite and Moabite troops attacked and completely destroyed those from Edom. Then they turned against each other and fought until the entire camp was wiped out! 24 When Judah’s army reached the tower that overlooked the desert, they saw that every soldier in the enemy’s army was lying dead on the ground.

For a disciplined army to turn on itself, the confusion must have been great indeed. The point in each of these narratives is simple - it wasn't the Israelites who conquered their enemies. It was their God who fought on their behalf.

And, finally in 2 Kings 19, the Assyrian Sennacharib brought an army of 185,000 to lay seige to Hezekiah's Jerusalem.  The prophet Isaiah was moved by the spirit to tell Hezekiah that the Lord would deliver, and sure enough:

  35 That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there


How did Brigham Young become the most well-known Mormon leader (after Joseph Smith left the scene)? Recently, I had the chance to visit the birthplace of Mormonism (Hill Cumorah / Palmayra, NY), and learn the origin of the LDS Scriptures.  In particular, I became quite interested in the Three Witnesses - Harris, Whitemer, and Cowdery. From the stories I read, these three seem instrumental in the translation / dictation of the original vision, and even in the early formation of the church in April, 1830.

And yet, none of them ever seems to have been prominent in the church since then.  I understand that all three left the church (though two returned), and so I can understand why they never became President - but there seems to be a gap in the record for me as to where Brigham Young came from.

When did he enter the Mormon story?  Why was he sufficiently credible to be able to lead the bulk of the church to Utah? What specifically was the "torch-passing" if you will that led Brigham Young to be considered Smith's successor?

The reason behind Young's rise to prominence is found in an understanding of the organization known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Young's role in it.

Young joined the church in 1832, 2 years after the church was organized and after the publication of the Book of Mormon, therefore he had no part in the initial roots of Mormonism. In 1834, Joseph Smith organized Zion's camp in Ohio as a military expedition to Missouri in order to fight persecution that the Mormons received there. The camp never actually engaged in any fighting, however there were many who defected and it allowed Smith to gauge who would be loyal to him even in hardship. Brigham Young was a member of this camp.

In 1835 after the return of the expedition, Smith then organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Most of the members of the the quorum were selected from those who were loyal in Zion's camp. Brigham Young was one of the first ordained and set apart to the quorum but did not have the designation of senior most apostle. As you mentioned many people were excommunicated from the church in those days. Though most of the quorum remained faithful, a few were excommunicated or killed, necessitating calling more people to the quorum. Young quickly became the senior most apostle of the quorum of the twelve. Thomas B. Marsh, who happened to be in the first presidency, was the senior most apostle before his excommunication in 1839. Young was subsequently set apart as president of the quorum in 1840 as a result of his new status as senior most apostle. He held this designation until Smith's death.

Brigham Young was not considered the second-in-charge to Smith. That was given to Smith's brother Hyrum who was ordained "Assistant to the President of the Church". Following him, the other natural successors would seemingly be the members of the first presidency. Hyrum was killed along with Joseph, ruling out Hyrum's succession. The subsequent succession crisis ensued; would it be the senior most member of the first presidency, would it be the senior most member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, or was it to be Smith's posterity?

Several candidates for Smith's succession emerged, and all of them gained some followers. Young contended, using revelations recorded by Smith, that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a body held all the 'keys' of the priesthood that Smith held, and that the first presidency was dissolved upon Smith's death, and that the Quorum held authority equal to that of the first presidency. He was successful in convincing many of his rightful succession. Sidney Rigdon, Young's primary challenger, proposed that Smith have no successor and that he be named "guardian" of the church. The majority of church members rejected that motion. A few others believed that Smith's successor was to be Joseph Smith III (who was not even an adolescent at the time).

Young's personality was forceful, charismatic, and direct. His ability for quick decision making and well-articulated instruction allowed him to emerge as a natural leader following Smith's death. He organized the very difficult colonization of the Rocky Mountains: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and others; he led the church through federal persecution for polygamous practices; he helped organize the difficult immigration of European Mormon converts to Utah. Under his leadership, vast irrigation projects, roads, bridges and even universities were established in Utah and surrounding areas. There is little doubt that he had the credentials to lead the church at that time. Young led the church for a time merely as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Most of the extant Quorum of the Twelve Apostles followed him and, with the belief that as a body they had the same authority as Joseph Smith, they eventually ordained Young as Smith's successor in 1847, giving him the same power, authority, and title that Joseph Smith had in the church.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest LDS denomination and is headquartered in Utah, still follows the same succession practice. When the president of the church dies, the first presidency is dissolved and the senior most apostle is ordained to the office of "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." It is believed that the current president has the same power and authority that Joseph Smith had.

For more information from official sources, see:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion%27s_Camp

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Young,_Brigham

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=436

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5216

Additionally, the Wikipedia articles covering these subjects, though somewhat disorganized, appear to be relatively accurate and present several other views.


According to Catholicism, is Adam or Eve more culpable for original sin? From a Catholic perspective:

Is there a shared culpability between Adam and Eve for original sin, or is only Adam or Eve ultimately responsible?

Please, link answers from Catholic sources.

(You can comment the question with non Catholic perspective, as it will be interesting, but it's not my main question)

Adam and Eve are both responsible for original sin.
Adam and Eve both sinned by pride, but Eve had more pride and Adam more culpability.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica II-II q. 163 a. 4 co. on whether Adam or Eve sinned more grievously:

the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.*

*viz., Adam should have known better and corrected Eve.

As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 35): "Eve in excusing herself betrays disparity of sex, though parity of pride."
But as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons:

Because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto by his own power.

The woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor.

The man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence."

It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's.

Also, only Adam is responsible for transmitting original sin to his descendants.


Does the RCC allow confirmation names that aren't based on saints? I was wondering if it is mandatory for it to be named after a saint or optional?

It's not even the fullest part of the suggested course at most churches.  The fullest part of what is normally suggested is that one either picks the name of a saint or a virtue (e.g. Patience, Chastity, Hope, Faith, Courage, Wisdom, etc.).  A common and very-much-encouraged divergence from this is to choose someone in your life (typically a dead relative) who inspired you to follow Christ with their example.  This is really very similar to being named after a saint, as the Church professes that the greater number of saints are not found in the earthly records.  Other people (though this is, obviously, less good) just pick a name they like.  The Church reserves the right of judgement over your choice of name (you probably can't get confirmed an obscenity), but anything you pick will probably be allowed unless it's obviously offensive or sacrilegious in some way.


Will there be sex in Heaven (the new Earth)? I have heard many people ask and now I have been considering the question myself. Will there be sex on the new Earth? What is the reasoning for either position?

There is very little Biblical evidence to suggest that there will be no sex on the new Earth nor in Heaven after Christ's second coming.

The idea spawns from an inferred interpretation of Mark 12:25

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The background story is that the Pharisees are attempting to trap Jesus and pose the question of who a woman would be married to after the resurrection if she has been widowed seven times. Jesus replies that she will be married to none of them.

What Jesus did not say is that there will be no sex or no procreation.

This idea is very old and comes from a time when it was unthinkable sin to copulate outside of marriage. Sex and marriage were so intertwined at times in some Christian cultures (Puritan) that they were equated. Some thought, and I am sure that some actually still do, that because there is no marriage then there surely is no sex either.

Without this verse, the Bible is silent on this issue.

Today, I do not know of a single denomination that teaches that there will be no sex after the Resurrection, though I would not be surprise if there are a few small groups, and I reserve the right to be corrected.

Another inference about this scripture is that there will be no gender in Heaven. That is clearly related, but takes the idea to the next level. I discuss this in the answer to a different question.


Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol

How about Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire?

Are they synonyms, are they different places?

As Jesus hung on the cross, he famously said to one of the thieves being crucified along with him that "today you will be with me in Paradise."  This establishes where Jesus was going to be after his death.  But after his resurrection, when Mary Magdalene found him in the garden, he told her that he had not yet been to Heaven to present himself to the Father. (John 20:17)  This establishes that Paradise is different from Heaven.

1 Peter 3: 18-19 explains that while Jesus was dead (and therefore in Paradise), he went to preach to "spirits in prison" who had been disobedient in mortality.  So it would seem that after death, people's spirits are sent to an intermediary location to await the resurrection.  Those who have been righteous go to paradise, and those who have been disobedient go to a "prison" whose name is not specified clearly.  But these intermediary locations are not the same as Heaven and Hell, the places to which we are sent after the Judgment, which is explicitly stated to take place after the resurrection in several different scriptures.


Does the Bible give us a purpose to life? I'm not sure that I know of any place in the Bible that directly states, "this is the purpose to life." But does it give us any idea as the exact purpose as to why we were created.

If God is truly Sovereign then he did not Need us for any reason, so why did He create us? Please provide scripture in your answer.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has as its first question:

  What is the chief end of man?

and the answer provided (with references):

  Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]

[a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
[b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4


Was casting out of demons done in the Old Testament by any Prophets or was it started in the New Testament? Was casting out of demons done in the Old Testament by any Prophets or was it started in the New Testament?

There are no explicit references to exorcism in the OT. However, in a possible foreshadowing of Christ, David caused an evil spirit to depart from Saul multiple times by playing the harp (1 Sam 16, 18, 19). Some view the NT exorcism accounts as evidence of an increased attempt by Satan to thwart God's plan to redeem the world through Jesus.


Does Joyce Meyer preach salvation by faith in Jesus alone (ie not works)? A non-Christian colleague is really interested in Joyce Meyer and is watching a lot of her talks. I don't know much about her (I only saw one talk and it was soundly Biblical).
Does she preach the basic Christian message of salvation by faith in Jesus alone, as described in John 14:6

Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.

and Ephesians 2:8-9?

For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved ([a]delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;
Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]

Quoting from the Amplified version which seems to be her preference, also.

Does she preach the basic Christian message of salvation by faith in Jesus alone.

No.

Allow me to explain.

Another answer has postulated "yes", and there is a sense in which there are words she uses that can be construed that way. The trouble is most of them can also be construed another way. It is therefore necessary to look at the broader context of her teachings in order to determine how well they align with a "salvation by faith in Christ alone" Gospel.

This is a tricky issue because she mixes and matches a lot of content. Taken in isolation some, indeed many, points of her doctrine may seem in agreement with mainstream Christian teaching. It isn't until you put all the pieces together that you see the pieces fit in a different puzzle.

Definition of terms and outline of scope

In order to treat an open-ended question like this on this site, I think it is necessary to identify who holds what views and who, exactly, has issues with what. For the purposes of the scope of this site, anyone self-professing to be Christian is on topic. Baring any further scoping (which your question is a bit thin on) I will be working under the assumption that you are questioning from a generic mainstream Protestant perspective.

Since it seems self evident that this question isn't directed at Catholicism or Orthodoxy and the (dubious) tag biblical-basis tends to be the focus of Protestants, I'll be tackling this from that direction.

Broadly I find the following conflicts between Joyce's teaching on salvation and "salvation by faith".

She defines the concepts of faith and works differently.
She defines salvation differently.
It isn't her main message.

Statement of faith

If you examine the statement of faith from her website, there isn't much there to cause alarm. Most of it could pass for most any non-denominational or even Baptist. There are a couple of items that put it in a more Pentecostal camp, maybe most similar to AOG.

The trouble is the statements there are not consistent with what she teaches. For example point 1:

  The Bible is the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and contains every answer to man's problems.

Sounds good. The trouble is she doesn't actually hold to the sufficiency of Scripture doctrine held by mainstream Protestants. Instead she believes in continued special revelation. She teaches that some things Christians should know are not spelled out in the Bible.

  The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really that is why you have got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I am telling you. I have got to just trust God that he is putting it into your spirit like he put it Into mine. — Joyce Meyer (audio clip)

In other words, her statement of faith is not an accurate guide to her teachings. Ergo when it comes to the part relevant to your question, we must examine whether the statement is actually reflected in her teachings.

  Man is created in the image of God but separated from God by sin. Without Jesus we cannot have a relationship with God.

  We can have a personal relationship with God through salvation, God's free gift to man. It is not a result of what we do, but it is only available through God's unearned favor. By admitting we have sinned and believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and accepting Him as Lord, we can spend eternity with God.

Alright so we have some stuff about Jesus, sin, salvation, personal relationship, etc. Fair enough.1 Lets see how they play out.

Soundly Biblical?

Your question made this observation:

  I only saw one talk and it was soundly Biblical.

This analysis would be is widely disputed by mainstream Protestants. See for example CARM's analysis.

So lets break down to where the dispute lines fall:

Starting easy, cults such as LDS and JW are different enough on core issues that no comparability is either implied or assumed.
The structure of Catholic, Orthodox, and even Anglican churches differs enough from her independent organization of one that there isn't much question that they don't match up.
Mainstream Protestants with which she is most often assumed to be associated (due in main part to her self-identification af 'simply Christian' have repeatedly disavowed her (some of the reasons for such are will be covered below).
Doctrinally, there are some notably similarities with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Her view of continued revelation is not that different from the role Ellen White plays in the SDAC. Her views on the relationship between salvation and sanctification are also similar. Notably different would be their views on hell where Joyce is fairly traditional and the SDAC is decidedly Annihilationist.

So who does she agree with? The theological school of thought with which she is most properly identified with is:

Word of Faith

It is important to note that when I say "properly identified", I am referring to general theological constructs. She is not officially part of any movement or denomination. Her FAQ, for example, skirts the issue a bit by agreeing with the general teachings while noting awareness of a common point of criticism.

  13. Is Joyce Meyer Ministries a "word of faith" ministry?

  Joyce Meyer Ministries believes in the Word of God. Joyce teaches that God has made promises to us in His Word and as believers, we should trust His promises. However, it can be damaging when people place their faith in faith alone instead of placing their faith in God. Misappropriation of God’s promises solely for personal gain is not scripturally supported.

While most adherents don't use this terminology, Joyce is firmly in the realm of what mainstream Protestants would call 'Prosperity Gospel' or 'Health and Wealth'. Note what Wikipeda gives for references. This distinctive is even openly claimed in her FAQ, albeit with the same caveat as for Word of Faith, noting a weakness of the movement.

  14. Does Joyce Meyer Ministries teach a "prosperity gospel"?

  Joyce Meyer Ministries believes that God desires to bless His people. Joyce teaches that God’s blessings and prosperity apply to the spiritual, emotional, physical and financial areas of life. These blessings and prosperity are then to be used to bless others. A "prosperity gospel" that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person’s walk with God.

In any case the overwhelming majority of her teaching falls squarely in this camp, and her choice of associations brings that tie even closer. See appearances with T.D. Jakes (former Oneness Pentecostal, + Word of Faith), her citations of Benny Henn (on the short list of top Prosperity Gospel proponents) on humans being 'little gods', sinlessness, etc., etc.

If you consider Prosperity / Health & Wealth teachings to be "soundly Biblical", the following may or may not be points of concern for you, but they are certainly causes for concern for mainstream Protestants of many different denominations.

So does she teach salvation by faith?

In addition to my previous knowledge and studies, in preparing for this answer, I reviewed about 3.5 hours of Joyce's teaching: 2 long conference segments and a few shorter messages (but still in whole segments so I'm sure I'm not just working with somebody else's cherry-picking. There are a couple of things to not from such a sampling.

While "faith" is often mentioned in her teachings including in the context of salvation, the fact that salvation if by faith alone is never stressed in the way that the Protestant doctrine of sola fide would have it be.

Works are never mentioned as a means to salvation, but they are constantly mentioned as a means to everything else. Her teaching is riddled with stories, often of her own experiences. The vast majority of these follow a pattern of "struggle with x, then finally I did y" or "make x mistake, then I realized y and did z". From a pragmatic standpoint a lot of preachers messages will include talk like this from time to time, but Joyce's preaching is exceptional for the pervasive use of the "I did" pattern. It is classic self-help coaching. God doing things and changing people is hardly given mention expect in response to something that men do first. All his action / blessing / etc is done as a result to somebody else's actions.

Here is a direct quote I heard in multiple sessions speaking to that theology:

  If we do things God's way God will give us double for our trouble. — Joyce Meyer

The scenario is constantly 'we do x, then and only then does God step up to do y'.
Her concept of "salvation" is at variance with Protestantism on the issue of sanctification.

In Protestant theology, we are saved from sin and justified before God once and for all by means of Christ's propitiatory death. Of the various pieces that make up salvation, justification happens once and for all but the process of our sanctification as believers is underway but not finished yet. Joyce completely disagrees with this and believes that as a result of her salvation she does not sin.

  I am not poor. I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is a lie from the pit of hell. That is what I were and if I still was then Jesus died in vain. I'm going to tell you something folks. I didn't stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn't a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that's heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I am righteous and I can't be righteous and be a sinner at the same time. — Joyce Meyer (youtube source)

If the context of the Protestant doctrine of salvation my faith alone, the 'not by works' clause is a necessary clarification because we believe we are still sinners and, even in our 'saved' state we continue to sin. Hopefully we are learning to recognize sin, repent from sin, etc. We are in the process of putting sin to death, but it hasn't been completely purged from us yet. That's the ongoing process of sanctification that will not be completed until we are taken up to glory in Chris's presence. Ergo if our salvation depended on our works we would fail. We continue to sin and grieve God even as his adopted children.

In contrast the clause 'not by works' is basically meaningless for Joyce because she believes she is no longer a sinner and does not sin. So whether her salvation depended on works or not is no longer a meaningful distinction. She is correct in identifying that most of the religious world (by which I assume she means "Christian" world) believes this to be heresy.

Somebody who believes they can be / are currently sinless in our earthly pre-glorification state cannot be said to preach "salvation by faith" in the same way other Protestants do because she means something different when she says 'salvation'. To her credit she does teach a fairly orthodox view of hell and that we are saved from it by Jesus having gone there in our place2, but again very little airtime is given to the work of Christ in her teachings, most of it is human focused, self-help-ism.
In nearly well over 3 hours of whole segments, the amount of time she spent making any remarks on salvation at all was less than 5 minutes sum-total.

Can it properly be said that someone who does not devote any attention to a subject at "preaches" it per your question? I think not. She does not "preach" salvation an all. Her attention is solely on other matters.

Given that her professed ministry focus is to believers, is this appropriate?

Reading the apostolic letters to the NT churches addressed to believers, the amount of focus placed on salvation and how it works is much higher. I havn't done the statistics but my gut level instinct based on reading and preaching the NT is that it's closer to 1/3 that 1/50.
Most of Protestantism places a high value on the fundamentals of salvation in Christ, giving it regular airtime even to audiences that are assumed to be mostly Christian.

Conclusion

The specifics of your question boil down to this:

Does Joyce Meyer use a lot of words and phrases that sound familiar to evangelical ears? Sure.
When she uses there words, does she mean the same thing by them as is meant by most Protestants? Clearly not.

So can it be claimed that she "preaches salvation by faith" when a) none of the other pieces of her doctrine fit the puzzle that sola fide came from and b) most of what she preaches is something else entirely that is at fundamental variance with what sola fide brings with it doctrinally? No. She does not preach a gospel and a salvation that is consistent with "And this is not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God;".

End note regarding your comment about translations:

  Quoting from the Amplified version which seems to be her preference.

Interesting that you should note this. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Amplified version and it certainly serves a purpose. However, extensive reliance on it in teaching is a signal that there may be hermeneutical problems with the message. It can be useful in identifying the inherent difficulty of mapping Biblical languages to English and for getting your head around the possible senses of a text, but it does not help you settle on which sense(s) were intended and or guide correct interpretation. If not combined with other good hermeneutical practices, it leaves the text open to possibly saying much more (or quite different) things than it should rightly interpreted to say.

This tends to make it a favorite by teachers who don't actually have another hermeneutical leg to stand on. The Amplified translation, while a good tool used properly, in this scenario becomes a convenient spring-board for making a passage say whatever a speaker wants it to say. In the case of Joyce Meyer, she makes no bones about the fact that she does not believe the words of Scripture alone are sufficient to understand God's message and that she believes she has a special anointing to do explain things beyond the words of Scripture.

1 Actually not fine, my Reformed inclinations also want to point out the issue with "by admitting" being made causative rather that being a result of God's work in changing hearts, but for the body of my answer I am trying to stick to a generic Evangelical viewpoint.

2 Most Protestants would again disagree with her on the exact mechanics of this as they believe the wrath of God was poured out on Christ while on the cross, not later in hell. Whether or not (and why) Christ spent time in hell is not universally agreed on, but that the thing he did in our place was completed on the cross is generally agreed on, which Meyers rejects.


To what degree could a person be "pro-polygamy" yet still obey the LDS church? As I understand it, the LDS teaching is that polygamy  is acceptable, in this mortal life, only when God decides to permit it, and that God has done so twice so far in history (1) during Biblical times (2) during the early history of the LDS church, from when Joseph Smith introduced the practice in the 1830s until the Manifesto of 1890. So offshoots of the LDS church which continue the practice today, are in the LDS belief, disobeying God, by practising polygamy  when He has not allowed it.

My question is then, to what extent could a person express support polygamy without being considered a transgressor by the LDS church? I know that any actual practice of polygamy today is considered transgression by the LDS church, as does any expression of support for that practice continuing today (even though one does not practice it).

But I can conceive of several ways in which a person could be "pro-polygamy" without practising it today or advocating its practice today:

A person could express the hope (privately or publicly) that God will soon allow it
again
A person could pray (privately or publicly) that God would allow it again soon (such
as by revealing to the President of the Church to that effect)
A person could advocate that current laws against polygamy be repealed, and that
polygamy be legally recognised. That would not necessarily entail supporting the
present-day practice of polygamy, since it is entirely possible, and not uncommon,
to advocate that an act morally ought not to be done, yet at the same time advocate
that it be legal. Also, insofar as one of the motivations for God revoking permission
for polygamy was legal opposition, the removal of that opposition might hasten God to
grant permission for it again

If a member of the LDS church took positions similar to the above, would they be likely to be considered transgression?

Edits: So, after the question changed... here's the answer to the new question; my original answer is below... though they do mingle some similar points and should both be considered.

This answer reflects my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm of course no clergy in the LDS Church...

New Answer

The LDS Church doesn't hold opinions against anyone. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. However, as Christ teaches, we are on safer and higher moral ground when we align our thoughts, hopes, desires, and actions with those of the Savior's. When these are in harmony, there is peace and happiness. When there is friction, often there is temptation and a slippery slope.

The LDS Church teaches to stay away from the edge, not see how close you can get to it. In general, I would expect this thinking/hoping to be strongly discouraged by the LDS Church...

Your question (now) is more about whether the thoughts/desires are transgression of the law or acting out is transgression of the law. However, still the same as my answer below about excommunication, it varies per circumstance and no one can judge but a judge in Israel (again, in LDS theology this is a bishop) and the Lord.

I see little difference between this type of thinking and the thinking of something like, "I hope that I can lay with that woman" -- or -- "I want God to tell me to sleep with her." These thoughts, of course, are (implicitly) adulterous, and this in the heart is also a sin.

A prophet in the Book of Mormon warns:

  30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Finally, and this makes reference to a piece from earlier and below, the temple recommend interview questions include a question about sympathizing with groups or individuals who have teachings contrary to the Church. For Mormons to be able to enter the temple, they must make sure this is not the case.

Original Answer

I see this question as more about excommunication than polygamy, essentially wondering, "How close to the edge can you get without falling off?"

Naturally, LDS Church leaders have taught against this mentality: stay well within the bounds of the Lord's commandments. Some risks are just not worth taking. Jesus taught this in His higher law: Don't merely love your friends and hate your enemies, but bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. Also His command to not merely not kill somebody, but do not even be angry with them. Stay well away.

Above, you present 3 ways in which somebody might tread too close. In situations 1 and 2, the thoughts or desires of the person is contrary to God's commandments, but is not actually acting outright, as the person still apparently wants to stay within the bounds the Lord has set. This behavior of course, requires repentance, as the person is asking either for permission to break God's law or for God to change His law. Martin Harris did the same thing during the restoration of the Church with the 116 pages which became lost in consequence. God commanded both Him and Joseph Smith to repent.

In all of the above situations, especially the third, the person could potentially be acting out publicly: by means of political activism, or groups or "clubs" or other various ways of expressing his opinion publicly or to rally others for a cause.

In the temple recommend interview questions, a person is asked something like if they are affiliated with, support, or sympathize with any groups or individuals which oppose Church teachings. Of course, temple worthiness is on the far opposite end of the spectrum from excommunication: one who may not enter the temple may not be near disciplinary action. This question is in place for a very important reason, though (obviously) -- one cannot have one foot in Zion and another in Babylon: a house divided against itself will fall. The person, acting in public on his desires, and thus acting upon the temptation to desire that which is contrary to the Lord's commandments, is probably committing sin...

Now, excommunication is a personal ordeal for which its reasons vary widely, but in general it is done only to help the person repent and suffer less condemnation in the process. I cannot say whether the person in any of the 3 scenarios above would be excommunicated, except that I think, probably not, unless the person knew full well what he was doing was contrary to the Lord's commandments and he was coming out in open rebellion against God, was setting a bad image for members of the Church and the Church itself, and was essentially ruining his own life and trying to bring others down in the process.

This is rarer than than common for sure, as everyone is tempted to do evil: it is acting on it, and the degree and circumstances upon which we do the action, that is all considered to be needful of repentance, and only the Lord and His appointed judges in Israel (in LDS teaching, the Priesthood leaders such as bishops) can really judge. I'm sure that a bishop would counsel with a member who is indulging in such thought or activity, but disciplinary action entirely depends on the situation, and again, is more rare than common.

For more information:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1 (Official Declaration 1, about practicing polygamy, by Wilford Woodruff.)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy (Newsroom article: Polygamy)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-is-a-mormon-excommunicated (About excommunication)

http://mormon.org/faq/topic/polygamy (Do Mormons practice polygamy?)


Have Jehovah's Witnesses indicated the upper limit for "overlapping generations"? As I understand things the JWs teach that based on references to "this generation" in the gospels the end of the world must happen within "the generation" of those alive in 1914 (when the JW organization was founded, I believe).

However, this has been redefined as the lifespan of two generations that intersect.

So my question is, do the JWs deduce that the end of the world must occur by a certain date? For example, if the end of the world does not happen before 2050 then has the overlapping generations theory failed? IE: At what point will the overlapping generations solution be abandoned? At the time of this writing it has been 104 years since 1914. Do they say that when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" he meant:

one generation = two overlapping generations
two overlapping generations must be <= two generations
in scripture a generation seems to be 40 years (because it took 40 years to kill off the generation that left Egypt):

  [Psa 95:10 KJV] 10 Forty years long was I grieved with [this] generation, and said, It [is] a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

It was about 40 years from when Jesus said "upon this generation shall come wrath" until the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and over a million Jews.

So it seems that:

a generation is 40 years
two generations is 80 years
two overlapping generations is <= 80 years

So their math is different. What is the math they are doing to come up with their still-future upper date and what is that date? (I want to put "repenting" on my calendar for the day before)!

No, Jehovah's Witnesses haven't assigned an upper limit.

This video, "David H. Splane: Close to the End of This System of Things" (last viewed in Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses in March 2018), is the most up to date explanation by Jehovah's Witnesses of "this generation". Concerning when the end of this time period is, we don't know, nor is it any of our concern, because Jesus said it won't come to an end. The video does, however, list some people which can be used as reference points for discerning that "this generation" hasn't yet passed away. All of those currently on the Governing Body are among the ones which were anointed contemporaries with anointed ones who saw the sign of Jesus' coming in 1914.

The main reason JWs care about this information is because it strengthens our faith such that we can continue to live our lives as Jesus said to do: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

Therefore, knowing that Jesus will come soon to restore the earth to a paradise gives us comfort and hope to continue enduring this system of things and to have added motivation to repent now and live our lives as Jesus commanded.


What evidence exists for post-Biblical miracles? I think any Christian will agree that real-life miracles happened at the time of the Old and New Testament.  I've also heard that modern day miracles are more common in developing countries than they are in western cultures.  But in these places, verifiable evidence is usually much harder to come by.

What evidence exists for miracles that occurred after the Bible was written?

I'm interested in miracles on par with those performed in the Bible, especially the New Testament--changing water into wine, healing of the obviously and terminally ill, feeding of the 5,000, someone being raised from the dead, walking on water, etc.

I'm not interested in stories of the healing of a fever, or finding $20 "just in time", etc. These may well be miracles, but they're easily debatable, so I'm more interested in obvious miracles.

I see miracles all the time. there's a secret though: "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to God must believe that HE is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." - Hebrews 11:6. Allot of people seem to think that faith is just believing God exists, and aren't quit sure that He will actually reward them for seeking Him, they think things like He'll only reward you if it's His will at the time. But having faith is defined as believing God will reward you for seeking Him.

Some of the miracles I have personally seen:

Cancer healed. (prayed for a few people who were given an expiration date, they went back to the doctor and were cancer free)
Irreparable nerve damage healed (instantly). There was a woman staying with my parents who had been shot in the leg. The bullet just missed one of her arteries, but it did do nerve damage. her specialist doctor said she would never have use of that leg again. When I came home to visit she started saying how she just can't take it any more. Me and her friend prayed, God instantly healed the nerve damage, she took of the brace and put down the crutches and started walking around praising God and dancing. My mom took her back to her doctor, while they were walking back to the office the woman ask the doctor if he noticed anything. He looked stunned for a moment and said, your off your crutches? that's not possible, he took her back an examined her and said, well I'm not sure what I can do for you, you're completely better.
Missing knuckle bone replaced and repaired. I was out in the park with a group that feeds and ministers to the homeless. One guy started talking to me, and mentioned that his knuckle had been smashed when he was a child, and showed me that it was gone. I asked him if he wanted it to be healed. He looked at me puzzled and said 'There's nothing to heal, my knuckle is missing, there's nothing there!' I told him, well originally before God created the world there was nothing, and then God spoke everything into existence. He thought about and said well I guess your right. I prayed for him, he felt something, and then a few weeks later I see him again. He comes running up to me all excited and pointing to his brand new knuckle. I later found out he had several other problems, like a bad leg, a plate in is head, and severe dyslexia so that he could only read a page a in a day. Other people ministered to him, all those problems where solved. He got off the street, stopped using his 'medical marijuana' and started leading a bible study at the mission(when before he couldn't read more than a page of text all day).
Missing breastbone grown back. A lady came up for prayer after a church service and explained that due to either a birth defect or childhood illness (I don't recall which) she did not have a breastbone, and that her ribs where stitched together with wire that needed to be checked and changed every few years. I prayed for her, next day she came back and reported the bone was there.
Met someone raised from the dead after being dead  and locked in a morgue. I was with a group of people and God impressed upon us to stop at a certain house and ask if we could pray for the person. So we knocked on the door and asked and the lady that answered the door. She thought we had come for her to pray for us, she then explained that people from all over the world had been drawn to her house to hear her testimony. She explained how she had died, explained in great detail the sights of heaven, all matching Revelation's description, and how Jesus had sent her back because it wasn't her time yet. She then woke up in the morgue and started just as the coroner came in and saw her sitting up and of course was scared silly. She had been clinically dead since the day before.

The mother of one of my classmates has seen a small pot of spaghetti multiplied to feed many hundreds of people on several occasions in Africa, when they didn't have enough to feed the people they were ministering to.

People who travel to 3rd world countries do tend to see more miracles than they do in the states mainly because people tend to be more hungry for supernatural activity there. There is usually a lot of blatant demonic activity in those countries so people are used to the supernatural. In the west there is hardly any demonic activity comparatively because the enemies strategy is to make people think he doesn't exist. and there are many churches in the west that claim God stopped doing miracles because we have the Bible, so we don't need them anymore. They think this is faith, just believing what the bible said happened and not needing any proof. Miracles aren't about needing proof, Miracles are about God demonstrating  His extravagant love.  That's why when Jesus was walking around doing mighty works, he didn't do them for the pharisees. The pharisees were questioning Jesus identity as the Son of God, when they said show us a sign, Jesus had been showing signs all along by healing people, but the pharisees where asking him to prove He was God. So Jesus didn't indulge there unbelief.  I see it all the time, God will allow someone demonstrating unbelief to be completely blind to something that really can't be argued with. So in closing, To me this is all about Hebrews 11:6. Faith is not just believing what God said, without any tangible proof(but that is a requirement), it's believing that God will reward you for seeking Him, if you don't meet both requirements, it's not pleasing to him. That doesn’t mean your damned for it, it just means your not fully trusting Him.


Did Pope Francis say that the Gospel is radical? I vaguely remember a quote by Pope Francis, in the context of mercy and his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which goes something like "The teaching of the Gospel itself is quite radical", using "radical" in a good way.  The basic meaning of the  quote was somethng like, Pope Francis doesn't need to break new ground in placing a greater emphasis on God's mercy and forgiveness, because the Gospel's teaching on this is already quite earth-shattering if we just listen to it.

Can someone help me identify this quote?  I distinctly remember that the words "Gospel" and "radical" occur in the quote.

I can't seem to find it in Amoris Laetitia, but it's possible that it's from some interview he gave about it, or it's from another document authored by him.

I can't see anything quite like this in the context of Amoris Laetitia, but the pope has used the words together a few times. According to the English-language version of the Vatican Radio website, he preached a homily from his residence in Santa Marta on 23 September 2014 in which he spoke about "the Gospel's call to radical simplicity in life and action". Similarly, in a homily preached for the 6th Asian Youth Day in Korea on 16 August 2014 (PDF), he spoke about "the radical demands of the Gospel". I can't find much else using precisely those words in documents published by the Pope, and nothing about interviews in which he used those words (though that is a more difficult search, especially with off-the-cuff remarks).

Francis was not the first to use "radical" in speaking about the Gospel, though; Pope St John Paul II mentioned the "radicalism of the Gospel" in his 1992 apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis, and Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the "radical call of the Gospel" in an address to the bishops of Bangladesh during their ad limina visit in 2008.


Do Mormons actually believe in any sort of supreme being/ultimate reality/"Absolute"? From what I've heard about the Mormon God, he doesn't actually seem to fit the description of "supreme being" and rather seems more like a polytheistic Greek or Hindu God.

The following may be misconceptions, so I'm open to correction:

The Mormon God didn't create matter. The matter was pre-existing and he just shaped it into being. This would seem to indicate that matter is as fundamental and eternal as God himself, potentially even more so.
Mormons seem to literally be polytheists: as I understand it they believe that the father, the son and the spirit are three separate Gods. However if that's true then neither the son, the spirit, or the father could be a "supreme being" because a supreme being can have no equal by definition. It's impossible to have more than one supreme being. If there was more then one then they wouldn't be "supreme". Mormonism complicates things further by the doctrine of exaltation, which I understand to mean that we can leave behind our human natures and literally become Gods. Sounds like strict polytheism.
The Mormon God doesn't act as the ground and source of all existence, like the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish) God does. He doesn't seem to be sustaining all of reality in existence from moment to moment by his creative energies, like the God of classical theism. Instead he seems to be hanging out in creation using his omnipotence like a really powerful human being would as if he were Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty. Again, more like a Greek or Hindu God, who have very human/"created being" personalities. I might be totally wrong about that though.

Most religions that I've investigated seem to have some concept of a supreme being/ultimate reality. For example in Hinduism you have the idea of Brahman, which is a Pantheistic Supreme being/Ultimate reality (the line gets a bit blurry in Hinduism) - all things have their source in Brahman. In Taoism you have the Tao, which is kind of like a force which permeates all creation and reality - all things have their source in the Tao. In the Classical Theism religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) you have the idea of God, who created all of reality and holds it in existence by his creative will from moment to moment - all things have their source in God.

Whereas the pattern breaks when you look at Mormonism. "All things have their source in the Mormon God" doesn't seem to hold true. In this sense the Mormon God honestly seems like an inferior being to the usual conception of God in Christianity. (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just describing the situation as it presents itself to me)

So for my actual question: Is there something I'm missing? Perhaps Mormonism DOES have some fundamental "ultimate reality" concept and I just haven't come across it during my research. Perhaps Mormon philosophers and scholars have thought about the issue and devised some "ultimate reality" concept but it hasn't been spoken about publicly much if at all.

For an alternate wording: Is there something which is "above" God in Mormonism? or is the Mormon God as supreme as it's going to get?

Short answer is that the Mormon God, Heavenly Father, is as supreme as it's going to get.

On your misconceptions on the Mormon belief about God:

Not creating matter - you are correct in your understanding

  You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Sermon)

Polytheistic- you are partly correct (Technically more of Henotheism-believing in multiple Gods but only worshipping one) See Also

The First Article of Faith states:

  We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. 1

On becoming like gods ourselves I've written more in this answer (basically to us there is only ever one God 1 Cor 8:5-6).

Unclear on subject point. We believe God does have a physical, exalted/perfect body. 2 The LDS website says:

  He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. ... We should seek to know our Father in Heaven. He loves us, and He has given us the precious opportunity to draw near to Him as we pray. Our prayers, offered in humility and sincerity, are heard and answered.

From that it mentions he is the Ruler and Preserver of all things, but it doesn't go into detail about how that is done. The second part mentions that part of what He does is answer man's prayers because He loves us.

Related is Mosiah 4:9

  Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

1 https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&old=true

2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21

All emphasis was added and is not present in the original sources


What support is there for the Jehovah’s Witness translation of John 1:1? Rather than the more traditional “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Jehovah’s Witnesses use the New World Translation, which gives John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

In asking what support there is for the Jehovah’s Witness position, this question is not about whether the New World Translation is correct and is not seeking a hermeneutical response, which is already provided here. I am looking for biblical or historical texts that could support the Jehovah’s Witness translation.

For information on how the Greek grammar supports the New World Translation, there are some related answers over on Biblical Hermeneutics to the question:

In John 1:1c, should the Greek word θεὸς be translated into English as “a god” or “God”?

Answer 1 by user2924
Answer 2 by elika kohen

In addition to an Appendix article of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References edition, the Study Edition of the New World Translation also supports John 1:1 saying:

the Word was a god: Or “the Word was divine [or, “a godlike one”].” This statement by John describes a quality or characteristic of “the Word” (Greek, ho loʹgos; see study note on the Word in this verse), that is, Jesus Christ. The Word’s preeminent position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things is a basis for describing him as “a god; a godlike one; divine; a divine being.” Many translators favor the rendering “the Word was God,” equating him with God Almighty. However, there are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that “the Word” was the same as Almighty God. First, the preceding clause and the following clause both clearly state that “the Word” was “with God.” Also, the Greek word the·osʹ occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·osʹ is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article. Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·osʹ refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.” Therefore, a number of Bible translations in English, French, and German render the text in a way similar to the New World Translation, conveying the idea that “the Word” was “a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike.” Supporting this view, ancient translations of John’s Gospel into the Sahidic and the Bohairic dialects of the Coptic language, probably produced in the third and fourth centuries C.E., handle the first occurrence of the·osʹ at Joh 1:1 differently from the second occurrence. These renderings highlight a quality of “the Word,” that his nature was like that of God, but they do not equate him with his Father, the almighty God. In harmony with this verse, Col 2:9 describes Christ as having “all the fullness of the divine quality.” And according to 2Pe 1:4, even Christ’s joint heirs would “become sharers in divine nature.” Additionally, in the Septuagint translation, the Greek word the·osʹ is the usual equivalent of the Hebrew words rendered “God,” ʼel and ʼelo·himʹ, which are thought to convey the basic meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” These Hebrew words are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and humans. (See study note on Joh 10:34.) Calling the Word “a god,” or “a mighty one,” would be in line with the prophecy at Isa 9:6, foretelling that the Messiah would be called “Mighty God” (not “Almighty God”) and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this.—Isa 9:7.

TL;DR: It states that the grammar of John 1:1c is in stark contrast to the surrounding verses which use a definite article ("the god"). The particular formulation used in John 1:1c is used in Greek to indicate a quality of the subject. It describes the nature of "the Word" and not the identity. It, therefore, emphasizes the mightiness that "the Word" possesses. This is further supported by the early Sahidic Coptic translation which uses an indefinite article in John 1:1c to form "a god," emphasizing the qualitative nature of the clause.
For an extremely thorough examination of the Greek grammar of John 1:1 that also examines bias in several common Bible translations (including the KJV, NIV, and NWT), read Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason D. BeDuhn. Chapter 11 focuses on John 1:1, and comes to the conclusion that the New World Translation is the only translation he discusses that captures the qualitative distinction given to "the Word". He argues that the best translation of John 1:1c would be, "And the Word was divine." (The NWT puts "divine" as an alternate rendering of "a god" in the footnote for John 1:1c.) Professor Jason BeDuhn also refutes several common arguments that translators use for translating "the Word was God," including the misapplication of Colwell's Rule.
In Philip Harner's scholarly article on Greek grammar, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, he suggests John 1:1 would be best translated as "the Word had the same nature as God." He criticizes the RSV and The Jerusalem Bible for translating "the Word was God" because "the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express." Philip Harner establishes his grammatical observation in his conclusion (emphasis mine):

In interpreting clauses of this type it is important to recall that Greek writers also had other types of word-order available. If a writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use an anarthrous predicate noun after the verb. If he wished to emphasize that the predicate noun was definite, he could supply the article. The availability of these other types of word-order strengthens the view that in many instances we may look primarily for a qualitative emphasis in anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb.

A summary of reasons why "a god" is appropriate in John 1:1 can also be found on Wikipedia.


How to reconcile the number of people that went down to Egypt with Jacob? In Genesis 46 26-27 it says:

  26 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob—those who were his direct
  descendants, not counting his sons’ wives—numbered sixty-six persons.
  27 With the two sons[f] who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the
  members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy[g] in
  all.

And in Acts 7:14 it says:

  14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family,
  seventy-five in all.

Is this a contradiction between the books or is there a way to get the extra 5?

There are a couple of possible ways to reconcile this, both within the established Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies used by Apologists.

Copyist errors.

The first comes by clarifying what "inerrancy" means, to debunk a straw-man argument that such a discrepancy in our current Bible is an issue in the first place.  For an in-depth dive into the doctrine of inerrancy, see From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?.

Short version:

Only the original manuscripts are considered inerrant, and we fully expect there to be copyist errors and other discrepancies in our current version.
We can overcome the "So how do we know we can trust the Bible if we know it contains copyist/translation errors" question by understanding that we have many, many, manuscripts to compare, and even though many discrepancies do exist between the manuscripts, none of them are doctrinally significant.  More at What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?

So, the first obvious possibility is a copyist or translation error in some of the accounts somewhere along the way.  That's what's proposed at the "Contradictions in the Bible" website.

Counting differently.

Again, going back to the non-straw-man version of inerrancy, inerrancy does not mean hyper-literalism.  (See the link above for more.)

It's entirely possible that the authors were counting different sets of people.  Say you're a reporter writing about an invasion that involved 1000 infantry men and two generals.  You may record this as 1000 soldiers storming the hill, and another may record 1002.  (Yeah, that's a bad analogy, but it sets up the argument used in this Apologetics Press article on the subject.

  Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the
  boiling point of water (100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit), different
  figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacob’s family
  members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not
  contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is
  used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen
  calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the
  following:

  In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacob’s wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure.
  Despite the mention of Jacob’s “daughters and his son’s daughters” (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the “seventy” was
  Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17).
  The wives of Jacob’s sons are not included in the seventy (46:26).
  Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the
  Septuagint, Joseph’s descendants are calculated as being nine.

  Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from “the
  seventy persons” mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible
  solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is
  possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his
  calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and
  great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob,
  Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is
  seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives
  of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s
  household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob
  is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how
  sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the
  wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been
  calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least
  two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time
  the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had
  already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to
  conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all
  likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus,
  when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and
  all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14),
  realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s
  brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.

Note:

This last article also addresses the discrepancy between manuscripts, and discusses more issues with the account. It's worth a read, as is this one from Tekton Apologetics.


Does the word ONE in the verses listed below denote a physical oneness of substance or a oneness in unity, purpose and nature? The Bible it talks of Jesus being one with the Father in scriptures like John 10:30 and 1 Jn. 5:7 but also says that we should be one with them as  in John 17:11 and Rom. 12:5. If we look at the Bible's original Greek or Hebrew text, is the same word used for both, or is the word that describes our oneness with them different?

The scriptures that speak of our heavenly Father and Jesus as being one are often used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity which would be in conflict with the latter scriptures because we are not physically part of the Trinity. (The Trinity being of one nature and one substance.) Does the original Greek or Hebrew word denote a physical oneness in substance, or a oneness in unity, purpose, action, and nature?

Here is a list of other scriptures that speak of the oneness being discussed.

Other Scriptures Unity
Other Scriptures One

Regarding the Greek, in all four verses that you cite, the same Greek word is used for "one" -- the Greek word "en".

Of itself that doesn't prove much. In Greek, as in English, you can use a word to have different shades of meaning in different contexts, and two words can be synonyms.

One of the verses that you cite, John 17:11, says, "that they may be one as We are", which would pretty clearly indicate that the oneness of the church is in some way the same as the oneness of the Father and Son. One could debate whether this means that the oneness of the church is exactly the same thing as the Trinity, that it is comparable as a analogy but not the same thing, or that here Jesus is talking about a unity between himself and the Father that is not the same as the unity of the Trinity.

To the best of my knowledge, Scripture does not give a definitive answer to this question. Happy to hear if somebody else can point to verses that could clarify.


During Lutheran Confession, can the confessor refuse to absolve the sins of the penitent? During Lutheran Confession, can the confessor refuse to absolve the sins of the penitent, if he or she thinks that the penitent is not being sincere? What if the penitent is sincere but cannot resist laughing at the many things that he or she has to say and is ashamed of?

First and foremost, nobody - neither Catholic nor Protestant - believes that a priest "forgives" sins.  At best, they act as an intermediary, supplicating to Jesus, who alone forgives sin.

As the Cathecism of the Catholic church states:

  Only God forgives sins. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner. The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ

Whether or not a priest chooses to exercise this role, in any form of Christianity, is up to the priest.

As an intermediary between man and God, Lutherans do not believe that a priest has an absolute lock on forgiveness. Indeed, as with most Protestants, Lutherans do not believe that the priest is doing anything except for incarnating the action that Jesus himself performs in forgiveness.

Put another way, Luterhans would not see the priest as having any particular monopoly on the granting of forgiveness.  As a practical matter as well, the priesthood of all believers means that in reality, any believer any seek forgiveness from any other. (Note: While this doctrine is usually associated with Baptists, Luther himself subscribed to the notion, if not the term.)

As such, if a priest didn't pronounce absolution, it would be a trivial matter for the penitent to secure another "priest" who would, or even find his forgiveness directly through prayer with the Lord.


Did the authors of the Westminster Standards accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid? In the original version of the Westminster Standards, a highly regarded Protestant doctrinal statement, there's a line that is particularly famous:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. (Confession, 25.6)

However, in my experience in churches holding to the Westminster Standards, baptisms performed by Roman Catholics are normally considered valid.  That is, if an adult seeking entry into a Presbyterian church was baptized as an infant by a Roman Catholic priest, he will not be "baptized again" – his RC baptism is considered valid.

But it seems unlikely that this was the view of the Westminster Divines, given their view of the pope.  So, I wonder: did the authors of the Westminster Confession regard Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?

If yes, they apparently believed that (1) the pope is the Antichrist and yet (2) those voluntarily aligned with him and under his authority (RC priests) can perform valid baptisms.  How is this apparent contradiction explained?

Another possible explanation is that they didn't accept Roman Catholic baptisms, but as later generations became less willing to accept the "Pope is Antichrist" statement, it has become more common in today's Reformed churches to accept RC baptisms.

What did the Westminster Divines think about the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms?  How was that view informed by their view of the papacy?

There is nothing absolutely specific in the Westminster Confession about Roman Catholic baptism. What there is supports its validity. However there was a long-established acceptance of baptism by Roman Catholic priests, even more than by laymen or even  women, and the Westminster Confession says nothing against it.

Perhaps more significantly, actions speak louder than words, or, in this case, inactions speak louder than words. From the earliest days of the Reformation there was never any tradition or practice of re-baptising those baptised by Roman priests. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Knox never doubted the validity of their baptisms. Only the Anabaptists practiced re-baptism (so-called, though they did not see it as such) and that was due to the objection to infant baptism and/or non-immersion.

The Westminster Confession (28 vii) states:

  The Sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

One could argue that if the first "baptism" was not valid, then a "re-baptism" would be the only baptism, which is what the Anabaptists did argue. Given the Westminster Divines opposition to anabaptism however,   this is best interpreted as referrring to repetition of any form of baptism. Given that earlier genertions acceptd Roman Catholic baptism we would need something very specific to infer that the Westminster divines did not.

But doesn't the mere fact of being agents of the Antichrist disqualify them as lawful ministers of the Church?  The Westminster Confession 25 vi, quoted by OP says:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Here we see that the Pope, though exaltng himself against Christ, is neverthless in His Church.  The Antichrist is within, not outwith, the Church.

Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish representative to the Westminster Assembly, argued that Roman Catholic priests were valid ministers, in part from the premise that they had valid Baptism. The Church of Scotland was concerned at the rise of  Independents and Separatists and Rutherford's wider strategy was to oppose the idea that anyone could be a minister without official endorsement. He did not accept baptism by laymen and argued from the general acceptance of Roman baptism the validity of Roman ministry. For the purposes of this question the point is that the validity of Roman Catholic baptism was so generaly accepted that it could be the basis of an argument. The Separatists claim was if they can do it so can we.

Two distinct views can be identified. One is that the Roman Catholic priests were de facto lawful  shepherds of Christ's flock, however misguided or corrupt, and that their  baptism was correct in the Trinitaran formula and the use of water,  and so valid. Parallels were drawn with Caiphas, or with the scribes and pharisees who, sitting in Moses seat (Matthew 23 v2) should be heard. Also in the days of Hezekiah, nobody was re-circumcised.

The other view was the postman argument. Just as a letter, signed, sealed and posted, might be delivered by an official messnger, or dropped in the street and delivered by anybody, so it did not matter who perfomed the baptism, it came from Jesus Christ, with His seal.

Either way, whether because RC priests were valid ministers, or because it did not matter, Roman Catholic baptism was certainly valid; and the Antichrist was within the visible Church.

The validity of Roman Catholc baptism, from a Reformed perspectve,  was an issue in Peru in 2004, and this anthology shows how the Reformed tradition has almost always acceped it. It includes etracts from the French Confession, Calvin, Knox, Beza, Perkins, Rutherford, Westminster, and others.


Do any Christian traditions assert that there can be more than one "messiah"? Do any Christian traditions assert that there can be more than one messiah? Does the term 'messiah' as carried over from Hebrew thought come to mean a singular entity, utterly unique or is this a term that can be more loosely used to describe a plurality of entities.

How essential is singularity in the meaning of 'messiah' as understood through the full messianic concept held among Christian traditions? Are there cases where a Christian tradition speaks of multiple 'messiahs'?

The English word "messiah" is a loanword derived from the Latin word messias, which itself is a transliteration of the Greek word μεσσίας (cp. John 1:41, 4:25), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ, which is accurately transliterated into English as mashiach.
That being said, the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ is an adjective which translates into English as "anointed." As an adjective, it can also function as a substantive meaning "anointed one."
In the Bible, many people are referred to as מָשִׁיחַ, including priests (Lev. 4:3), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), the kings of Israel (1 Kings 19:16), and even the king of Persia (Isa. 45:1). Hence, we encounter the phrase הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ (ha-kohen ha-mashiach), or "the anointed priest" (Lev. 4:3).
It is thus evident that there were many "anointed ones," or as you put it, "messiahs." Even the Tanakh mentions many "anointed ones" ("messiahs") in one verse. For example,
In 1 Chr. 16:22, it is written,

Do not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets.
אַל תִּגְּעוּ בִּמְשִׁיחָי וּבִנְבִיאַי אַל תָּרֵעוּ

ִּבִּמְשִׁיחָי is not "My anointed one," for that would have been written בִּמְשִׁיחִי. The word בִּמְשִׁיחָי is plural, meaning "My anointed ones."
Furthermore, all Christians today are anointed and technically "messiahs."

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God. 1 Cor. 1:21

Also,

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know everything. 1 John 2:20

And,

And the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you about everything, and is truth, and is no lie, even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

However, there is one anointed one who is the anointed par excellence (κατ' εξοχήν), and that is who Christians identify as the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., Lord Jesus, the Anointed One). The reason the Lord Jesus is the Anointed One par excellence is because he was anointed with the "oil of gladness" more than any of his brothers. This "oil of gladness," which he was not given by measure (John 3:34), is the Holy Spirit (cp. Acts 10:38).

6 O' God, Your throne is for ever and ever. The sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore O' God, your God anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows. Psa. 45:6-7

Hence, we call the Lord Jesus "the messiah" and not "a messiah."


Prior to 1900 were there any depictions of Satan in Christian art as a woman/female? Are there any Christian symbolic depictions Satan in art as a woman?

In Christian art, Satan has often been depicted as a man (male) or some evil looking monster out of man's imagination of what the Devil should look like.

In 2004, Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ had Satan portrayed as being androgynous by Rosalinda Celentano.

Rosalinda Celentano - The Passion of the Christ

My question is this: Prior to 1900, has there been any historical depictions of Satan in Christian art as a woman (female)?

Lucas Cranach the Elder (c.1472 – 16 October 1553), a German Renaissance painter and printmaker in woodcut and , made the following woodcut in 1523.It depicts Satan as half serpent and half woman!

Adam and Eve, Woodcut by Lucas Cranach, the Elder, 1523.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag? I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the  United States flag) or even to salute it.

What is the basis for this prohibition?  I'm wondering what is so wrong to have a secondary allegiance to one's country, after one's allegiance to God.

Q. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag?

A. The answer is found in the very definition of what the words "pledge" and "allegiance" mean and on what God's word the Bible states / shows to Whom we are to pledge our allegiance.

  pledge
  noun \ˈplej\

  a serious promise or agreement
  a promise to give money
  something that you leave with another person as a way to show that you will keep your promise

~ Above definition taken directly from Merriam Webster online dictionary.

  al·le·giance
  noun \ə-ˈlē-jən(t)s\

  the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
  (1) :  the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government
   (2) :  the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

  devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause"

~ Above definition taken directly from Merriam Webster online dictionary.

  “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting EXCLUSIVE devotion"
  ~ Exodus 20:4, 5

  So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. 7 You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
  ~ Luke 4:5-8

Therefore, we who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses will ONLY pledge our allegiance to the One who as the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth exacts EXCLUSIVE devotion / allegiance... JEHOVAH God (the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ).

If we had an official pledge it would probably be recited in the following way:

I pledge allegiance to JEHOVAH GOD, the Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth. And to His Kingdom of which Christ stands, holiness under God indivisible with righteousness and justice for all.

Furthermore, on the subject of allegiance to one's country, Jehovah directed ancient Israel to use warfare to take possession of the land that He himself as the Sovereign Lord of the universe designated as their inheritance and to execute people whose depraved practices and defiance of the true God caused Jehovah to view them as being no longer fit to receive His gift of life and continue to live. (Deut. 7:1, 2, 5; 9:5; Lev. 18:24, 25) Nevertheless, mercy was shown to Rahab and to the Gibeonites (who were not Jehovah's Witnesses / members of the nation of Israel) because they demonstrated faith in Jehovah. (Josh. 2:9-13; 9:24-27)

In the Law covenant given through Moses, God laid down very specific rules for warfare that He Himself would approve, stipulating exemptions and the manner in which this warfare was to be carried out. Such were truly HOLY WARS OF JEHOVAH. That IS NOT true of the carnal warfare of ANY nation (including the United States of America) today.

With the establishing of the 1st century Christian congregation, a NEW situation came into existence. True Christians ARE NOT under the Mosaic Law. Christ’s followers were to make disciples of people of all nations; so worshipers of the true God would in time be found in all those nations. However, what is the motive of those nations when they go to war? Is it to carry out the will of the Creator of all the earth or is it to further some nationalistic interest?

We all know the answer.

If true Christians in one nation were to go to war against another nation, they would be fighting against fellow believers, against people who prayed for help to the same God that they did. Such an action as that is utterly unacceptable and chaotic, being that true Christians are in fact part of the same worldwide spiritual family.

Appropriately, Christ directed his true followers to lay down the sword at Matt. 26:52. He himself, glorified in the heavens, would henceforth carry out the execution of those who showed defiance of the true God and His will as recorded at —2 Thess. 1:6-8 and Rev. 19:11-21.


According to Evangelicals, will the saved ever experience the magnitude of suffering associated with their sins? On another website, one person said this concerning Catholicism and Purgatory,

  My own vision of purgatory, for which I claim no doctrinal validity, has some interesting echoes in the platonic version (which I have never seen till now.) It is that we are shown for the first time the true evil of our sins, and especially the wide ripples of harm our sins caused to others. We thus endure an excruciating revelation of the evil we have perpetrated, and are invited to full repentance, which probably includes going to each person we wronged and obtaining pardon.

Whether that is true or not is not important.

My question to Evangelicals is this:

Will one who is saved, that is, one who has faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ, ever experience the magnitude of suffering associated with the sins he/she committed (especially against others) in this life, as well as know (by being reminded of) all the sins they have ever committed (i.e., the total quantity)?

  In order to know all the sins they have ever committed, imagine a courtroom where a judge is reading a list and judging you guilty of every single sin you have ever committed. Moreover, by experiencing the magnitude of suffering associated with each sin, imagine each time a sin is enumerated by the judge, you experience (feel) the pain, anguish, hurt, and sorrow felt by the person you sinned against, as well as your very own soul (when you have sinned against yourself). Catholics experience this in Purgatory, and their souls must be purified of their sins.

If so, when does this occur and for what purpose?
Or, does God forget them (cp. Jer. 31:34) and the saved never experiences them in judgment?

I am an evangelical, but am not entirely sure if my belief is the official stance of the church.

Concerning your first question, I believe that when we see God, we will know the magnitude of our sins. Similar to how Isaiah did:

  "And I[Isaiah] said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"(Isaiah 6:5 ESV).

Thus, yes, when we get to heaven, we will see God, feel the magnitude of our sins, and be disgusted by them. And knowing what sort of persons we are in the eyes of God, thank him all the more for the grace which he bestowed upon us, and the love with which he loved us.

The purpose of this is to bring Glory to the Lord, for on earth, we never know the magnitude of our depravity, but once we see the Holy God, whose countenance is so pure he cannot even look upon sin we can understand the magnitude of the grace with which He saved us.

You mentioned at the end of the first bullet, "especially sins committed against others". I would like to make the argument that a sin committed against God including other sinners is no worse than a sin committed against God when we are alone. For sin is the state of rebellion against God, so although we hurt people, we never actually sin against people.

  Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. (Psalm 51:4)

Concerning your final point, The Lord Jesus Christ has justified us via his death on the cross. Where 'justified' is used in the most legal sense - that is, God treats us as if we had never sinned, as if we were righteous.

  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom 4:5)

I don't know if it's correct to say God 'forgets' our sins. But it is to say his righteous wrath upon our sin was satisfied by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. And through Christ, he has removed our sins from us.

  "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

Sorry if I was a bit long winded. But I hope I answered, or at least provided some insight concerning, your question.


Is Yahweh the Golden Calf? Does the name  "Egeliah" found on ancient ostracon which translates to "bull calf of Yah" suggest that the Golden calves of Aaron and Jeroboam are actually symbols of Yahweh rather than deified animals? I have always thought that the Israelites worshiped the Golden Calf alone and that it was not an affiliated object to Yahweh. Lastly why is God portrayed as a bull in Numbers 24:8? Thanks.

Yes, that is a common understanding of the passage.  On this interpretation the Israelites disobeyed the following commandment:

  “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me... (Exodus 20:4-5 RSV)

The following source lends credibility to this idea:

  Although both Exodus and Kings portray "calf worship" as disloyalty to YHWH, most scholars believe that it was not really an abandonment of Yahwism.  Archaeological finds, including the El texts from Ugarit, indicate that Near Eastern gods commonly were envisioned as standing invisibly on the backs of calves, bulls, or other powerful animals.  The calf figures were merely pedestals for the divine presence. (Harris and Platzner, The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible)

See also Exodus 32:4, where the graven image is identified with the power that brought them out of Egypt, as well as verse 5 which includes a reiteration of their fidelity to the Lord.


Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One? I don't understand the concept of God in Christianity. Based on what I do know, there is God, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit -- doesn't this add up to 3 Gods?

In Christianity, is there there One (True God) or are there three gods? If there are three gods, what is the role of each one? And who was the original God? Who is the father to the "Son of God"?

Firstly, the Trinity is not Tritheism. This is the classic argument of the Muslim against Christianity, but it is not valid. It is not valid, because the formulation of the Trinity specifically states that God is one being who exists in three persons.

The Athansian Creed (a very ancient creed dating to the fourth or fifth century predating the Orthodox / Catholic / Protestant schims and accepted by at least 97% of all Christians) in particular states:

  we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

The problem is not in the formulation, but rather in attempts to make an analogy to explain it. There are great light-hearted attempts at analogy, but each suffers from a defect of some kind. No analogy is possible, because there is no terrestrial equivalent that properly holds the tension of the fact that three people with distinct energies, capable of perfectly relating to each other, are thus so close as to be One being. Every Trinitarian heresy comes out of an attempt to force such an analogy.

Tritheism in particular was endemic to those areas of Christianity that are now under Muslim control. Tritheism emphasizes the distinct personalities to the detriment of their unity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed so close as to be one, in the same way a Muslim would agree that a man and wife are one flesh. Sometimes the analogy of the egg (shell, yolk, and white) is used to describe this relationship, but really it doesn't convey the simultaneous distinction and sameness of personality.
Modalism, on the other hand, makes the opposite mistake. It says that the Three manifestations of God are just different aspects of the same entity. (For example, some will say water is ice, fluid, and steam, or a man is father and husband)  That, however, precludes the ability of, say, God the Father to exalt God the Son (Phillipians 2:9).

That being said, the primary means of differentiating the three persons of the Trinity is by their observed actions in history:

God the Father is the primary actor in the history of Israel and the Old Testament. He is identified by his love, jealousy, and protection of his people. For his own glory, he rescued his people from Egypt, and showed himself powerful on behalf of those whose hearts were perfect toward him.
God the Son is known primarily through his actions as the incarnated Jesus of Nazereth.  According to John, he existed from the beginning of Creation, and he made all things. By him there is nothing made that was made. He chose to temporarily give up the rights of godhood in order to become a man. Being found in human likeness, he was obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.
God the Holy Spirit is known primarily through his actions in the church.  God the Son sent Him to dwell amongst his people, and was most visibly manifest at Pentecost. He is the source of the gifts manifest amongst Christians and is present in His church.

None of these actors acts out of accord with any of the others, and they all have the same character and purpose. They do have unique wills, but willingly subordinate them to each other in perfect harmony.

The truth is there is no analogy because there is no terrestrial equivalent. That said, both Muslims and Christians would agree that God is so far above humans that his Nature could be incomprehensible to his creation. That God is both Three and One is the core tenet of our understanding of who God is. In no way do Christians believe there is more than one God, but how we express that remains a paradox we cannot or have not resolved since his nature was revealed.