What are the differences between the different millenialisms? Revelation 20:1-6 tells of 1000 years in which Christ will reign.  I've heard there are different views on this 1000 years, mainly premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism.  What are the differences between these views of the millenium in Rev 20:1-6?  (Especially concerning the different timelines)

  Revelation 20:1-6
  1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the
  Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon,
  that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a
  thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed
  it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the
  thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short
  time.

  4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given
  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.
  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received
  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not
  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first
  resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first
  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand
  years.

As you note, the different "millennialisms" are based on different interpretations of the "thousand year reign" mentioned towards the end of Revelation. Unfortunately, answering this question is not as easy as simply stating the different views on the millennium itself. Each of the different views only make sense inside their respective theological frameworks. For example, you cannot transplant the amillennial view of the thousand years and into a dispensational theological framework. Thus, in order to properly answer this, we must include bits of subjects other than just the millennium itself and one must be aware that you cannot simply choose one of these views on their own, you must arrive at one of these understandings based on your hermeneutic for understanding the rest of Scripture.

As you noted, there are several main views on eschatology. Your question mentioned three. While no set of boxes will suffice to accurately categorize these views, I think it's unfair to not include a fourth, namely historic-premillennialism. The modern view called premillennialism is radically different from what was known as premillennialism just a few hundred years ago. The radical shift of views under the same name makes it confusing, so one must delineate.*

How each of these views addresses the what and when of the millennium is also tied up in their views of the church, what the kingdom of God is and the timelines of both world history and individual lives.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism identifies the millennium as a future event in this world where Christians triumph over this world and the Kingdom of God is visible (as opposed to the church-invisible). Of all the views I understand this one the least, but I believe there is some variance of opinion on when the millennium starts. Some say it will be a gradual event where the church sets right all the wrongs of the world step by step until eventually we reach a golden age. Another view is that Christ will dramatically intervene at some point in the future to bring this about.

The thousand years of the millennium are generally considered to be figurative -- meaning a long period of time but not necessarily exactly 1000 years as we know them. Satan is bound during the millennium both spiritually and physically so he can't wreak his normal havoc. After the thousand years, Jesus will return. Those believers living will be caught up to be with Him in heaven and the dead will be raised, either to life with him or eternal death.

Amillennialism

Like post-millennialism, amillennialism believes that the thousand years is a figurative number indicating a long period of time and that Jesus will return after the thousand years is over. Unlike the other views, amillennialism believes that the thousand years has already started. Beginning with the first coming of Jesus and the establishment of the NT church the reign of Christ in victory through the invisible church has already begun. Satan is currently bound in that his power to stop the spread of the Gospel is limited. The kingdom is growing and reigning victoriously through true believers in the world today. However the world as a whole is also still inhabited by evil and good and evil grow side by side and in contrast to each other until Jesus returns for his own. This is the period of tribulation, and the church experiences but is preserved through it. Jesus second returning ends the millennium and marks the second judgement.

Premillennialism

The modern iteration of premillennialism is based on dispensational theology and is sometimes knows as Dispensational Premillennialism, although if someone gives no qualification as to which premillennialism is being referenced, it is is generally assumed to be this one.

The dispensational premillennial timeline is the hardest to describe. The millennium is a future event in which the nation of Israel is restored and all the promises about her are fulfilled. Before the millennium starts however, Jesus returns two more times, once privately to rapture the gentile believers out of the world and again publicly at the start of the millennium. In between these two returns is the tribulation, a 7 year period of disaster and judgement on earth. There are three views on when the church is raptured in relation to the tribulation, pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation and post-tribulation. Evil in the world will generally increase until the start of the tribulation, at which point all hell breaks loose in a time of satanic dominance. After that time is over and Jesus has come (the third time if you are counting from time he came for the cross) Satan's power will be entirely bound and a new kingdom will be established on earth where the Jewish people are restored to their place as God's chosen people and reign on earth. When that's over eventually the church already raptured out of the world and the restored faithful remnant of Israel will be reconciled in heaven.

Historic Premillennialism

Also known as "Classic Premillennialism", is actually more similar to Amillenialism than it's modern name-sake. The period of tribulation for the church began with its establishment after the resurrection and will end when Christ returns to earth a second time. Evil will increase in the world along side of good. The church invisible will be sorely tried but always be victorious as protected and strengthened by Christ along the way. There are different views on the great tribulation and whether all of the prophecies are spread out throughout this church age or whether some of them are concentrated into a special great-tribulation period during the last seven (literal or figurative) years at the end. Either way, Christ returns once when the tribulation period is over both to collect his church out of the world, resurrect the dead, and to judge evil. Where historic pre-millennialism differs from amillennialism is what happens after that. Amillennialism sees the thousand years as overlaid on top of the tribulation, parallel tracks as it were or different perspectives on the same event. Historic pre-millennialism believes that the tribulation is now but that after the second return there will be a time of earthly reign in which all things are made new, Christs power to restore is demonstrated on the same turf on which the rest of history was played out but with him physically present and Satan bound. This time can be interpreted as either figurative for a long period of time or a literal thousand years.

*For full disclosure in case my bias comes through somewhere: I am historic-premil.


Are people by nature good or are they inherently evil? Inspired by the question Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?.

Are people, by nature, good?  Or are people evil by nature?

To define these in terms of the world (as opposed to this being rephrased version of "Are people born into sin?"), a "good" person would be someone who does good things for others, considers others above themselves (or at least is considerate of other people's feelings), and generally wants to do things to benefit or help others.

Evil, by comparison would be people who are egoistical, to the point of being willing to do harm to others for their own benefit.  This covers a range of "evil" actions (from manipulative people all the way up to murderous people.)

Another way to view this:  "good" could be correlated to "love", and "evil" could be correlated to "hate".

I've heard that some humanists believe that people are, by nature, good people.  That people, in general, want to help others, support each other's causes, and do things to benefit others over themselves.

What does the Bible say about this?  Are there other extra-biblical Christian documents/doctrine to support one way or the other?

Deriving from the topics of Original Sin and Common Grace, I would argue that the answer is "both".

Let me expand. Our born nature is that of a sinner - one who cannot obtain God's favor on his own. However, we also have natural tendencies to take care of immediate family (Matthew 5:47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" and Luke 11:11 "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?").

In so far as it benefits US, we are "basically good". But since we tend to epitomize selfishness, when the benefits for US no longer exceed the cost, we will tend to be "basically evil".

As to the extreme examples of that (theft, murder, etc etc), the cost-benefit analysis was either never made, or is highly skewed.


How sound is the doctrine in Dante's Inferno? I have read Dante's Inferno and was wondering how Theologically sound some of the points-of-view really are?
Now I know Dante's Inferno was not written by a priest or anyone really involved in any sort of real church. So it could be that it was never really meant to be considered as anything but a flight-of-fancy,but still the religious imagery is so vivid and profound that I cannot seem to shake the idea that these where the cherished beliefs of the writer.
What shook me is the idea that the well-meaning pagan would go to hell. This struck me as an odd belief when the Bible mentions that those who don't have the law are still governed by it, their conscience bearing witness.
This seems to me to be at odds with what the Bible teaches. I guess Dante did not believe in the salvation of infants either.
The second issue that struck me is how bad the sin of suicide is considered in this book.  Now we know suicide is often a result of very real mental disease.
The idea that these people would be denied entry into heaven as a matter of principle over a disease they may not have any control over, does not strike me as the actions of an all-good and loving God.
Now again this work may very well not be endorsed by any church, but still the theological implications may be worth discussing as there exist the real chance that some may people reading may consider it doctrine.

How sound is the doctrine in Dante's Inferno?
Dante’s Inferno is basically just one part of the now famous work known as The Divine Comedy. Dante Alighieri’s epic poem was written in 1321 and was written as a literary work and not a theological work. We have to keep that in mind.
Dante was quite orthodox for his time place in history.
As a literary work, it was intended to be a poem which included the use of allegory, symbolism,  philosophy, and theology, as understood in his times.

Dante’s three-part epic poem the Divine Comedy, or Commedia, is one of the most influential and dense works of poetic literature in the Western tradition.  Building off Homer and Virgil, and influencing the likes of Chaucer, Milton, Blake, and Tennyson, as well as bringing to popular consciousness and form the modern Italian language, Dante’s epic delves into the meaning of allegory, poetry, love, truth, and philosophy.  Dante’s poetry rests on the classical presumptions of the human being: earthly love does have Divine, or transcendent, character and quality.  Moreover, following from the Christian tradition which Dante is part of and extols, it is first the love of things temporal when finally, and properly ordered, allows one to enjoy earthly loves while proceeding to move toward the permanent things: the good, true, and beautiful.
Admittedly, the poem is exceedingly dense and is ripe with all types of layers of allegory, philosophy, and theology. For a basic understanding of the intellectual content of the poem, I cannot go too deep into the themes for risk of losing you, the reader.  As such, I will explore a few of the major themes in the various books – starting with Inferno – and give explanation and context to these.
Understanding the Inferno: The Construction of Hell
To understand Dante’s construction of Hell we must first understand some basic things about Christian theology.  In Christian theology, God is understood as Love and Truth. This is important to know when exploring the nine circles of Hell, and especially the separation between the first four five circles with the final four circles.  Furthermore, Christian anthropology asserts that man has a telos and that this telos is to live a life in union with truth, wisdom, and love. Without knowing Truth, which is impossible with reason or wisdom, then one cannot properly love.  Without this one cannot live a truly fulfilled and happy life which is what all humans seek. - Dante’s Inferno: Understanding Hell

Dante’s Divine Comedy is a poem containing a  mixture of the Biblical truths, Roman Catholicism, mythology, and medieval traditions.

The poem is written in the first person as Dante describes his imaginative journey through the three realms of the dead: Inferno (hell); Purgatorio (Purgatory); and Paradiso (heaven).
The philosophy of the poem is a mixture of the Bible, Roman Catholicism, mythology, and medieval tradition. Where Dante draws on his knowledge of the Bible, the poem is truthful and insightful. Where he draws on the other sources, the poem departs from truth.
One extra-biblical source Dante drew upon was Islamic tradition (Hadiths) as depicted in Muhammed’s “Night Journey.” According to one scholar, Islamic eschatology has exercised “an extraordinary influence on Chinese and Christian thought. Among numerous popular eschatological works written by Christians, Dante’s Divina Commedia is an example of Islamic influence” (Islam by Solomon Nigosian, Crucible, 1987, page 152).
In fairness to Dante, however, it should be noted that his work is intended to be literary, not theological. It does reflect a deep yearning to understand the mysteries of life and death and, as such, has generated tremendous interest over the centuries, remaining extremely popular even today. - Is The Divine Comedy / Dante’s Inferno a biblically accurate description of heaven and hell?

Not completely backed up biblically or even by any tradition, Dante places Satan frozen in the middle of a lake of ice. He even places Christ’s betrayer Judas in his mouth as if eating souls like a ravenous lion. In his three mouths, he chews on Judas Iscariot, Marcus Junius Brutus, and Gaius Cassius Longinus. The Divine Comedy runs like a medieval novel than a theological work.

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. - 1 Peter 5:8

His epic poem does deviate from biblical sources and traditional pius beliefs, but his imagery, at least to me remains awesome!

Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Inferno, Canto 34. Illustration by Gustave Doré.
The following may be of some interest:

Why is the Devil also known as Lucifer (and other names) three-faced? Symbolic meaning of Dante in his Canto XXXIV of the Divine Comedy.


Does "no part of this world" mean no involvement in politics? Jesus is reported as having said that his kingdom was "no part of this world", and further of assuring Pontius Pilate that his followers posed no risk to the secular authorities. Given that, should Christians be involved in politics?

My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this
world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered
up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.
John 18:36. NWT

Christians throughout history have differing interpretations of how the faithful should approach civil governments. I would point you toward a seminal work addressing this topic called Christ and Culture by H. R. Niebuhr.

One position (Christ against culture), advocated by those like Mennonites, argues for total withdraw from the political sphere. Another position (Christ of Culture) sees politics as interwoven in salvation history and essential for Christian life.

Niebuhr goes on to list three other interpretations. Each, I would argue, are biblically viable and have strong places in the history of doctrine.

So, this is certainly an important question. And Christians of all traditions will answer it very differently. It is also a Biblical question. And Christians of all traditions will interpret the Bible differently as well.

As you study and make up your mind, please remember this is far from a clear-cut issue. Some of the answers already posted strike me as approaching an unhealthy, black-and-white dogmatism.


Which is the "correct" bible for Catholics? There are many versions of the Bible, such as the:

King James Bible
NIV
NRSV

But which is the "correct" bible for Catholics to read?

The King James Version is not accepted by the Catholic Church. Primarily because it is translated to fit Anglican theology src1 src2. There is no Catholic edition of the NIV either. Not to mention these misses Deuterocanonical Books. Regarding NRSV make sure it is a Catholic edition.

The correct bible that a Catholic is supposed to use is the Latin Vulgate Bible. That is the official bible of the Catholic Church. That is the one which is used in papal masses.

But if you are looking for bible in your vernacular look for a bible that has:

73 books in it
An imprimatur sign from competent authority (usually a bishop)
Bishop's conference of a country would usually have released/recommended an official translation, which is used in the liturgy. It would be better if you can get hold of that version.

The following is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983 src:

Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society
The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches
The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society


What does "God is just" mean according to Calvinists? In our world, what we understand about "justice" is not just a verdict between guilty or not guilty, because it also balances the punishment on the severity of the crime.

Here is an illustration:
There are two people who are not elected before the foundation of the world.
The first is a 16 years old kid who was naughty and sometimes disobedient to his parents who then died.
The other one is a 30-year-old man who raped many women and then died.

The question is, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? What is the Calvinist position?

You are correct in noting that in Calvinism one's ultimate eschatological end is the result of either God electing one to glory or one to destruction.
However, because Calvinist care about what Scripture teaches, they also hold to the belief that their are varying degrees of punishment (and supposedly varying degrees of glory) rendered individually to each man.
Here are a few obvious passages which strongly suggest gradations of punishment in hell.

[God] will render to every man according to his works. (Romans 2:6)
[This is the conclusion of one of Jesus' parables.] The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-48)

One popular Calvinist outlet, Ligonier Ministries, defends this belief with no qualms.

There will be degrees of punishment during the day of wrath. One “trivial” sin makes us guilty of the whole law and liable to eternal torment (James 2:10). Yet some acts are worse than others and deserve harsher punishment (Num. 35:9–29). As bad as Sodom was, her sentence will be lighter on Judgment Day than Bethsaida’s because Sodom never saw Jesus (Matt. 11:20–24). The sinner who never hears of Christ will go to hell, yet his pain will be less intense than those who hear the Gospel each Sunday and refuse to repent.

So then, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? The answer is no from a cursory reading of the Bible, and the answer is also no from a normal Calvinistic reading of the Bible.
Though your question seemed to imply that you're wondering what justice means to a Calvinist. I would suggest clarifying exactly what it is that you are asking. For self study on this subject, look into forensic justification and double imputation. Those who fail to have Christ' righteousness imputed to them are left with Adam's sin and their own personal sins left imputed to their own accounts. You ultimately get what's imputed to you, and the more grievous the sin that's imputed to you, the more judgement you receive.
Source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/degrees-punishment/


Why do Syrian Orthodox churches use only paintings and not sculptures, unlike Catholic churches? I am an Orthodox Christian, and in our church we don't have sculptures unlike Catholic churches in my area. We only have paintings and pictures.

I don't know if this is because of the bull sculpture demolition story of Moses or some other belief.  Is it mentioned anywhere in the bible that we can or cannot pray in front of sculptures?

I Googled based on the comments and found that it is stated that we should not use idols.  Is what the Catholic church does wrong or against the Bible? How do they justify the use of sculptures.

I am actually trying to find the difference between the praying in front of the idol in Hinduism and Christianity.

I am, in fact a Catholic. I was intrigued by your question and so I decided to do some religious research with my Catechism books. So according to the books: The first commandment forbids the making or the use of statures and pictures only when they promote false worship. An example of this would be using a medal, not to remind us of a saint (Such as St. Maximilian Kolbe) but simply as a good luck charm.  It is right to show respect to the statues and pictures of saints, just as we would show respect of those whom we honor or love on Earth. Just as long as we don't give them the honor that belongs to God alone.

Just in case you're interested in that book it's called The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism


How did John the Baptist have the "spirit and power of Elijah"? As the angel Gabriel said to Zechariah, whose son would be John the Baptist...

  Luke 1:17 (NLT)

  17 He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah. He will prepare the people for the coming of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will cause those who are rebellious to accept the wisdom of the godly.”

I remember Elijah as an Old Testament prophet that performed many miracles, as did Elisha who requested and received Elijah's power. Yet, I don't remember John the Baptist as having performed any miracles. So then, how did John the Baptist have Elijah's "spirit and power"? I'd prefer answers from a perspective as close to that of Wesleyan as possible.

The similarity between Elijah and John the Baptists is understood the same way by most Protestant Commentaries including John Wesley’s.

This is understood to mean:

  With the same integrity, courage, austerity, and fervour, and the same power attending his word (John Wesley's Notes, Luke 1:17)

However to understand this brief comment by Wesley one really has to appreciate the history of Elijah to see how truly John the Baptist was almost exactly like him. The problem is simply that nowadays people are not that familiar with Old Testament figures and how the fit it into salvation history.

Anyone, after reading the history of Elijah in the Old Testament setting would probably make these sorts of observations.

He was a large looming figure, surpassing the greatness of most prophets, if not all.  He was almost along the lines of Moses, which makes his appearance with Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration not so surprising as.  Elijah’s greatness is probably due to the impression that the world and especially the apostasy of Israel had reached its lowest point. Prophets were essentially defenders of Jehovah and of the Laws of Moses. Elijah, ‘suddenly’ appeared on this deplorable state of the world, desperately needing reform, with a ‘ferocity’ and ‘stern ruggedness’ that leaps out of the scriptures in fiery, rebukes, challenges and contests. He essentially stands alone saying ‘Repent!’ to Israel with unmoving faithfulness and unflinching fearlessness, like a man with a face of flint.

This unbending, unfaltering spirit of sternness and severity, like a man cracking the whip of God, was predicted to come again to usher in Messiah’s entrance into the world. This expectation was a central one in the Jew’s mindset about the coming kingdom. For details refer here: What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect.

Even his and the Baptists appearance ‘with an upper garment of black camel’s hair with a leather belt’ (2 Kings 1:8) so aptly represented their spirit:

  John had his raiment of camels' hair - Coarse and rough, suiting his character and doctrine. (John Wesley's Notes, Mathew 3:4)

I think it is under this perspective that miracles play no part in the idea of ‘spirit and power’, for although miracles are powerful to persuade people that God is speaking it is really the words and message that these men had to Israel, which reflects all the power they had in their spirit.  Furthermore as the Baptist's mission was meant 'to decrease' while Christ’s 'increased', miracles would have not served the spirit of his mission. His main duty was to call every Jew to a Baptism of repentance in preparation of Christ ‘whose sandals he was not worthy to untie'.  Just as Elijah called Israel back to Jehovah as a lost people under God’s anger, so the Baptist called the Jews to be baptized like Gentile converts, fully emerging into a new life of reformed expectation for a great salvation.

It is all these ideas that bring Wesley to make his brief notes on the subject as he does.


What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine? Inspired by this question and answers for it: what happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine? I'm interested in all variants.

OK I'm finally getting around to answering this question. Unfortunately I'm limited on time so this is a summary of the Orthodox position. First of all, Orthodoxy's entire anthropology differs from Western Christianity (no original guilt/concupiscence). As such, their soteriology doesn't begin in the same place as Western Christianity and thus concludes differently. Many Western Protestants emphasize "getting saved" so that you don't go to hell when you die. The emphasis often has more to do with avoiding hell than going to heaven. But even heaven is not the goal nor focal point of Orthodoxy.

The point is to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), being united with Christ and thus escaping corruption and death. As 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 says,

  For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
  But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; then when Christ
  comes, those who belong to him. Then comes the end, when he hands over
  the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule
  and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all
  his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is
  death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But
  when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that
  this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.
  And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be
  subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God
  may be all in all.

And so our emphasis is on Christ's defeat of sin, death, and Satan - and that this victory means that one day "God will be all in all." In other words, there will be no way to escape from God's presence. "Heaven" is not some place up in the sky that hides us from the underworld. "Hell" is not a place and it is not the absence of God. This also means that dying and going to heaven isn't the end of the story nor is it the focus. Eastern Orthodox Christianity is about "life after life after death" (to borrow a phrase coined by N.T. Wright), i.e. life after the final judgment, after the bodily resurrection (the notion of a disembodied eternal existence in a purely spiritual heaven or becoming angels are Gnostic concepts). This is important because Orthodox do not think of hell as a "place," it's more of a metaphor or concept. Everyone will be in God's loving presence when they die, but for some that will be paradise and for others it will be torment. Much of the Western concepts of heaven and hell are derived more from pagan cultures than from the scriptures, which only used these existing cultural terms to hint at transcendent mysteries.

As to what happens after physical death (other than being in God's presence), no one really knows (this is freely admitted by most Orthodox scholars). The best we have is speculation and the "hints" we get in the Bible. As such, there are a variety of "theories" in Orthodoxy (but this speculation is often not helpful). But where everyone agrees is that we go to be in God's unfiltered presence.

A note about praying for the dead. Presently, when we die, we all go to be in God's presence until we await the final judgment and bodily resurrection. We believe that it may be possible for individuals to change their disposition towards God's love after death. This is not dogma, but we hold out hope for this. Since death is a defeated foe (it's just not annihilated yet), we also ask deceased saints to pray for us since they are now in God's presence and also mystically present with us in worship. After the final judgment, it will likely be too late to change one's disposition, but we hold out hope that all might come to know God's love as a wonderful thing for all eternity (see more on this here). I don't have time to elaborate on this much more here, and it wouldn't be entirely on topic anyways.

If you'd like to read more in depth about this, check out this article.


Why do (at least some) Messianic Jews celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 15th of Tishri? In an (attempted) answer to the question of Why is Christmas on December 25th? from the perspective of Messianic Judaism, it was stated that Messianic Jews believe that Jesus (Yehu’shua HaMashiach) was born on the 15th of Tishri (falling in late September or early October in the Western calendar).

What is the justification for this belief? Is it a widespread belief in Messianic Judaism or only held by a minority? Is there any historical evidence that this belief was held prior to the 19th century?

All the Jewish feasts that are described in the book of Leviticus were fulfilled, (or will be fulfilled,) by Christ.

Think not that I am come to destroy  the law, or the prophets:  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[Matthew 5:17, 18]

Jesus fulfilled the Passover as the Lamb of God without spot or blemish (sinless).

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of Unleavened Bread by His being broken and buried. The Passover seder included the ceremony of taking 3 sheets of unleavened bread; breaking the middle piece and distributing to the guests, the other half of this piece is hidden (buried) somewhere in the house to be found (resurrected) later.

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of the Fisrtfruits of Harvest by rising from the dead.

*But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

[1 Corinthians 15:20 KJV]*

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of Tabernacles by being born on that day. The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles is the start of the rainy season in Israel. The Old Testament prophets said that Messiah would drop down like the rain:

*My doctrine [God’s Word] shall drop as the rain,
[Deuteronomy 32:2a]

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD:  his going forth is prepared as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain,  as the latter and former rain unto the earth.  [Hosea 6:3 KJV]*

Jesus was incarnated and born in a tabernacle (Probably built by his carpenter father around a stone manger):

And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us,
[John 1:14a]

Messiah Jesus was born on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, as its fulfillment on the 15th day of the 7th month, known as Tishri on the Biblical, Hebrew calendar, as prophesied and promised by God through many Old Testament prophets.

I would be interested to hear of any Biblical prophecies that anyone has found that say that Messiah will come in the dead of winter, or of any feasts in winter that He could be the fulfillment of. Some have suggested Hanukka, but that occured after the canon of Old Testament scripture was complete; only 168 years before Jesus' birth, and was never part of the Law. The Levitical Feasts had been in effect for over 1500 years. Jesus didn't accept "It's just tradition," as a legitimate reason for belief:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [Mark 7:9 KJV]

Neither should you. Don't just take my word for it; study for yourself to find the truth.

Appended in regards to the following questions:
"Is it a widespread belief in Messianic Judaism or only held by a minority? Is there any historical evidence that this belief was held prior to the 19th century?"

The rabbis that I have had discussions with when regarding when they got started all claim to be a continuation of the earliest founding of the church, the body of Christ:

When Peter gave the sermon on Pentecost, all 3000 souls that were baptized were Messianic Jews: that is, Jews who received Jesus as their Messiah:

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. ... Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. [Acts 2:5, 38-41 KJV]

There were 1000’s of Messianic Jews in Jerusalem who believed, which also kept the Law, which were in the church under James,.

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: [Acts 21:17-20 KJV]

Peter even felt that he had to act like a Jew when James sent some of the Jewish brethren to him:

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. [Galatians 2:12 KJV]

After the stoning of Stephen, the persecution of the Messianic Jews became so great that they were scattered abroad to many countries:

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. ... Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. [Acts 8:1, 4 KJV]

But they used this dispersion to reach even more people with the good news of their messiah, but they still preached to other Jews only:

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. [Acts 11:19 KJV]

The book of James was addressed to the dispersed Messianic Jews:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. [James 1:1 KJV]

It is said that the book of 1st Peter was also addressed to the scattered Messianic Jews, but it seems a little odd to call them strangers:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [1 Peter 1:1 KJV]

You can’t get much farther back than that. All the Messianic rabbis and other teachers that I have spoken to all believe that the Feast of Tabernacles is the fulfillment of the Messiah’s birth, they all celebrate The Passover on the same day that it is celebrated in Jerusalem. And many other teachings that come right out of the Bible. These were all in Orange County, California, there may be other beliefs in other places.


What is the doctrinal significance of repetition between the Gospels? The four Gospels each cover roughly the same events, but the details differ, as illustrated here.

Leaving aside the difference in similarity between the Synoptic Gospels and John, is there significance to which events are described multiple times?  Are multiply-described events more important in some way, or are they areas where multiple tellings are more important to understand the relevant doctrine?

Deuteronomy 19:15(NIV)

  One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or
  offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the
  testimony of two or three witnesses.

The above verse is a biblical basis to understand a reason for the different gospels. Also the three first gospels were written with different audience in mind:

Matthew wrote with Jews in mind, in Hebraic with Eusebius, Origen and scholar Jerome to testify this.

Mark wrote with non-Jews in mind. For example Latin terms are used, contains explanations that would not have been necessary for Jewish readers and also explain Semitic terms.

Luke wrote it for Theophilus (Luke 1:1-3)

John provide more information for events that the other Evangelizers don't say something.


The Eucharist and the supernatural Priesthood This is probably a question mostly directed at Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.

Why is it that only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist?

Is there the assumption that there is some sort of power associated with the priesthood that makes it possible for the Eucharist to take place, or is it something else? I had read somewhere a short excerpt from a Catholic article decrying the way priests are treated and treat themselves as normal lay persons, whereas in fact they have a supernatural aspect. If this is correct, where does this extra supernatural aspect come from? And what is the Biblical basis for it?

From the point of view of Catholicism, the first part of this question might be, "Why does anyone at all need to consecrate the Eucharist?" After all, if no one needs to consecrate it, then a fortiori it is not necessary for a priest to consecrate it.

As usual, I went to the Summa Theologica to check out what the Church's greatest theologian had to say. I wasn't disappointed. The Third Part of the Summa, Question 78, Article 1 discusses the wording by which the consecration takes place. As part of his discussion of the question, Aquinas states that "the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person" (emphasis added); that is, by the use of the words "This is my body ... this is my blood" (cf. Luke 22:19–20, Matthew 26:26–28, 1 Corinthians 10:16).

The wording becomes important in the Third Part of the Summa, Question 82, Article 1, where Aquinas asks "Whether the consecration of this sacrament [of the Eucharist] belongs to a priest alone?"

Aquinas considers a number of objections. Most important, he asks whether it might be the case that any believer could consecrate the Eucharist. There are a couple of reasons why people might believe this is the case. They might be thinking that since the words themselves are the form of the consecration, therefore anyone who can say the words can consecrate the Eucharist. Or they might be thinking that lay people can consecrate the Eucharist by virtue of their participation in "the priesthood of all believers", by which

  the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1279)

But Aquinas concludes that this is not sufficient to allow the believer to consecrate the Eucharist. He says,

  Such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.

In other words, what's specifically important about those words in particular are that Christ Himself said them. Thus, only one who is empowered to act as Christ will in fact consecrate the Eucharist by saying those words.

Now the Catholic Church does in fact believe that those in the higher ranks of Holy Orders (priests and bishops, but not deacons) are empowered to act as Christ:

  The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people.

(Lumen Gentium, section 10)

The encyclical letter Mediator Dei, written by Pope Pius XII in 1947, points out John 20:21 and Luke 10:16 in particular as instances where Christ sends out the apostles with his own power and authority; and the Catechism points out the institution of the seventy elders with the spirit that was in Moses (Numbers 11:24–25), in a prayer that is still said at the consecration of priests:

  Lord, holy Father,...
  when you had appointed high priests to rule your people,
  you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity
  to be with them and to help them in their task....
  you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men....
  You shared among the sons of Aaron
  the fullness of their father’s power.

Thus, the Church believes that as God has from early times, he pours out his Spirit on certain men, giving them the power to act as his delegates and ministers in a special way. It is by this outpouring and this grace of the Father that a priest, and only a priest, has the authority to speak in the person of Christ, and thus only a priest has the ability to consecrate the Eucharist.


Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament? Is it true that all the disciples of Christ's apostles (including Paul) considered (in their writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries) the priesthood one of the sacraments?

Simple answer, No. No there is no proof of the assertion by that priest.

The idea of Apostolic succession from which the orthodox imposition of hands as a sacrament finds its purpose is not something that can be historically traced. The laying on of hands is in the bible but not for this serious purpose of defining legitimate authority to administer the sacraments through a chain of succession.

As there are little writings after the Apostles before Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD. The best I can argue is by finding the best evidence for the 'imposition of hands' as a holy sacriment to trasmit succession and show it to be no proof at all.

I will not turn to the scripture as there is no evidence there to support this sacrament. The place where you would most expect to find it is in 1 Timothy Chapter 3, as the qualifications for bishops are listed, but nothing is there. This at once proves the requirement not set out as a  scripturally required rite, but looks look at the argument from history alone.

 Here is a quote by Tertullian making the best case for a kind of succesion from a [wiki] write up:

Tertullian,  In his Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.

  Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed."

But notice four things.

 - First, the emphasis is not about laying on of hands. That is a biblical principle, and every church sort of follows that, in prayer and ordination, but its not portrayed as a the-big-thing. The importance is in the fact that the previous Bishop vouchsafed the new one. Its about credibility.
 - Second, every church had a different bishop, passing the torch. There was no super bishop holding all the cards. Even the Apostles did not 'take charge' over churches planted by another Apostle.
 - Third, To trace such succession today would be impractical, for it would be 100,000 times more complex than Christ's genealogies, for any given city.
 - Fourth, although this would have been a wise practice in the early church to prevent heresy from totally destroying it,  there is actually nothing in the Bible that says it needed to be that way.

Therefore even if one could prove the impossible to prove (due to lack of historical writings), there is nothing in scripture to enforce its continuance, which would be impractical to do anyway.

I do not think God would allow utter silence in his word and in post apostolic history for something as important as this, if there was any truth to it.

Personally I would find it harder to disprove that God prefers blue over purple, because I see more blue in nature. That does not infer that we can't reasonable conclude God does not prefer blue.


Confusion regarding the son of God I myself am not a Christian but Iin college I have a Christian Friend. I know that Christians regard Christ as son of God spiritually not bodily. I asked my friend, "Why do you call Eesa (Christ) (Peace be upon him) as the son of God?" He asked me a question in reply "Do you accept that Maryam (Peace be upon her) is his mother?" I said "Yes, indeed." He then said "Had there been anyone father of Eesa from the humans?" I said "No, never ever!" He then said, "Here is the point. He had no father among the humans so by convention we call him the son of God because He has no other father!" My question is, do all the Christians think like this? Was what he saying Christian ideology or simply his ideology? I am not trying to offend anyone. I am asking this question for clarity of my mind and I may clear his mind as well about his religion according to your thoughts so that he may get some more knowledge about his religion.

The overwhelming majority of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God spiritually, bodily, and every other way. We believe that he was conceived miraculously within the virgin Mary by the power of the Spirit of God, and so God is his father not in only a figurative sense, but concretely. Most Christian groups consider this to be a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.
Jesus said he is the Son of God.

Luke 22:66-71 (NASB) When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
Revelation 2:18,26-28 “The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this... "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father; and I will give him the morning star.

The Apostles also taught that Jesus is the Son of God.

Acts 9:20-22 Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he [Saul of Tarsus] began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
1 John 5:5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Regarding the OP's comment: I took a look at the site you linked to, which I have visited before. I disagree with their statement, "nowhere in the Bible does it say that God had relations with anyone to produce a literal son, nor has Christianity taught that God produced a son through any physical act whatsoever."
While the scriptures do not describe any act of intercourse, the teaching of which would be considered obscene, the Scriptures do indeed teach that God did act, by which he caused Mary to conceive. She did not only become spiritually pregnant, but physically pregnant with the Son of God, as God told her that she would. Mary was obedient and consented, and so she has been blessed among all women.

Luke 1:31-38  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Jesus did not teach that he was only the Son of God in a spiritual sense, and the Apostles taught us that he was the Son of God without any qualification. That is what we first heard and believed.


Why is the funeral/burial several days after death? I've noticed that Christian funerals and burials tend to come several days after the death, even in cases where the death was expected, there was no police involvement (so no need to wait on investigations), and nobody had to travel great distances.1  I've seen this for Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and some type of Lutheran (sorry, don't know which), so I'm assuming it's general, but if that assumption is mistaken please correct me.

Is there a theological reason to wait?  Maybe a wait of three days is religiously significant, or there is some belief that either the soul or the family needs the delay?  Is it a practical concern (that somehow doesn't apply to Jewish burials, which are usually within a day)?  Is it not seen as urgent and so it's easier to just always have a delay?

1 The case that reminded me to ask the question is a Monday-morning death, expected, and a Saturday funeral, where nobody has to fly in.

There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law which requires a wait of any particular time after a death for a funeral to take place. (My father was buried two days after his death; so were my wife's parents. In all cases the delays were simply due to the need to coordinate with the priest and the funeral home.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does briefly allude to the idea that the community may celebrate "the anniversary of a death, or the seventh or thirtieth day after death" (paragraph 1687); I've never seen such a celebration.

The Ordo Exsequiarum (Order of Funerals, the book which contains the Catholic rites surrounding funerals) may have something further to say on this; unfortunately, it is not a text to which I have access.


Does Christianity claim itself to be the final revelation from God? Does Christianity claim to be the last true religion that will ever exist, or does it admit the possibility of being supplanted by a new revelation, like Judaism was with Christianity?

Christianity1 doesn't make claims about itself but rather makes claims about Jesus. And those claims are based on the Bible, which records Jesus' own words. So what does Jesus say about being supplanted by a new revelation? He was asked exactly this question - here is His answer:

When the men came to Jesus, they said, ‘John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”’
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, illnesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.  So he replied to the messengers, ‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.  Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.’

Luke 7:20-23
Furthermore, in another place He specifically says that there is no other way to God than through Him:

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:6
So He's the First Revelation and The Last. As Peter said2, "There is no one else."
1 And here you'd have to specify which flavour of Christianity you're talking about.
2 My paraphrase.


Are there Christians who believe that Jesus does not have a physical body right now? I've researched about this topic online and I could only find one Christian website so far that affirms this belief.

https://www.bible.ca/d-Jesus-body-now.htm

Does anybody else know if a particular Christian denomination believes this way too? Personally, it makes sense, logically, that Jesus doesn't have a physical body because human bodies freeze in space without a suit. Colossians 1:15 also explicitly states that the Son is the image of the invisible God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the body of Jesus was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms, and what came out of the tomb was a spirit creature.

JESUS’ FLESHLEY BODY DISSOLVED: What happened to the perfect fleshly body of Jesus after his death?  Was it preserved so that in time men will look upon it in worship? or does Jesus still have this fleshly body in the heavens, “spiritualized” so that it can be seen and worshiped? Neither. The Scriptures answer: It was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms...  Moses’ body returned to the dust by process of decay, as all human bodies do, but not so in Jesus’ case, for it is written: “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” (Ps. 16:10, AS; Acts 2:31) So God caused Jesus’ body to disappear, but not corrupt, meaning that it was dissolved, disintegrated back into the elements from which all human bodies are made.—John 20:1-13.
JESUS RESURRECTED WITH SPIRIT ORGANISM:  The resurrected Jesus was given a spirit body: “He being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” (1 Pet. 3:18, NW)

The article goes on say that the bodies that Jesus appeared in after his resurrection were materialized bodies.  The article concludes that those who refuse to recognize the signs of Jesus’ invisible presence because of looking for his coming in a body of flesh are mistaken.  Source: Watchtower 1 September 1953 pp. 517-520 article The Fleshly Body of Jesus https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953641?q=resurrection+jesus+body&p=par

Hence Jehovah God the Father, who has life-giving power in himself, raised his Son from the dead on the third day to immortal life in heaven, in the spirit realm. ... When Jesus ascended to heaven forty days after his resurrection from the dead, he did not take the sacrificed human body to heaven with him—an impossibility!—but took with him the value of his sacrificed perfect human life, in order to present this to the heavenly Father in behalf of mankind.  Source: Watchtower 1 December 1964 pp.717-726  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964883?q=resurrection+spirit&p=par

Here is a quotation from a more recent Watchtower article:

The apostles knew that Jesus’ resurrection was different from the resurrections that preceded it. People who were brought back to life earlier came back with physical bodies and eventually died again. Jesus was resurrected with a spirit body that was imperishable. (Read Acts 13:34.) Peter wrote that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Moreover, “he is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.” (1 Pet. 3:18-22) The previous resurrections were both marvelous and miraculous, but none compared to this supreme miracle.  Source: The Resurrection of Jesus—Its Meaning for Us – Watchtower 15 November 2014 pp. 3-7  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014842?q=resurrection+spirit&p=par

With regard to the return of Christ Jesus, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe he will be invisible:

In what form does Christ return? He was resurrected as an invisible spirit person. (1 Peter 3:18) Then, he went to heaven and sat at God’s right hand. (Psalm 110:1) Much later, Jesus was brought before Jehovah God, “the Ancient of Days,” who granted Jesus power to rule over mankind. So Jesus returns, not as a human, but as an invisible King.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013888?q=return+Jesus&p=par

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that after Jesus resurrection he materialised before his disciples to look like a human (even eating and drinking with them), but when he ascended into heaven, he was a spirit.  Therefore they say Jesus does not have a physical body right now.  Furthermore, when Jesus returns, they say it will not be in bodily form, but he will be an invisible spirit.
Please be aware that I am merely presenting the official view of Jehovah’s Witnesses.


If John wrote the 4th Gospel, why did he not name himself or his brother? I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?

If John wrote the 4th Gospel, why did he not name himself or his brother?

St. John the Evangelist was a very humble, yet confident individual before God.

Humility kept him from naming himself as the author of the fourth Gospel.

Saint John and his brother, Saint James the Greater, the sons of Zebedee, were given the nickname "Sons of Thunder" by Christ Himself.

St. John the Apostle was known as the “beloved disciple” of Jesus.

It is said that John "reclined at the bosom of the Lord" during the Last Supper. It was John who asked Christ who His betrayer would be.

Please remember also that the only apostle who did not flee the scene of the crucifixion was St. John himself.

It was John the Beloved who kept vigil at the cross with the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was Saint John to whom Jesus confided the care of His mother from the cross: "John, behold your Mother...Woman, behold your son."

  John was with Peter when Mary Magdalen came upon them after seeing the empty tomb.  Both John and Peter ran to the tomb, but John ran faster, for he was younger.  However, upon arriving at the tomb, John waited outside for Peter and then followed him into the empty room where Christ had been laid. It is clear that Saint John acted in humility and respect. He allowed Peter—whom Christ had chosen to be leader of the Apostles—to enter first. - 3 Things We Can Learn From Saint John The Beloved

But it is the last chapter of the Gospel of St. John, that shows his true humility in not naming himself as author of the Gospel.

  20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

  22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

  24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

  25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. - John 21:20-25

Humility was possibly not the only factor. St. John looked after the Mother of Jesus for many years and it is not inconceivable that in order to protect Jesus’ Mother, the “Beloved Disciple” wished to remain to some degree anonymous, in case persecutions broke out.


Six-hundred-sixty-six or six-six-six or six-one-six Regarding the passage of Revelation 13:18, which is likely the most proper way to present the Beast's number?

600+60+6 (six hundred and sixty six)
6-6-6 (six six six)
600+10+6 (six hundred and sixteen)
6-1-6 (six one six)

The Greek spells out each word:

  ἑξακόσιοι (six hundred) ἑξήκοντα (sixty) ἕξ (six).

At the time the NT was written, place holders were unknown. It was simply not possible to write ἕξ ἕξ ἕξ (or to use the single letters for six which would be three stigmas) and it be understood as six hundred sixty-six. To write out 666 using the letter equivalents would be chi xi stigma (χξϛ). Chi being used for six hundred, xi representing sixty, and stigma being 6 (stigma was used in antiquity only as a numeral). If you did write out ἕξ ἕξ ἕξ or ϛϛϛ, the reader would understand it as "18" because you add up the letters to make the total.

The translator's notes for Revelation 13:18 from the NET Bible concludes that 666 is to be preferred over 616:

  A few mss (Ì115 C, along with a few mss known to Irenaeus {and two minuscule mss, 5 and 11, no longer extant}), read 616 here, and several other witnesses have other variations. Irenaeus’ mention of mss that have 616 is balanced by his rejection of such witnesses in this case. As intriguing as the reading 616 is (since the conversion of Nero Caesar’s name in Latin by way of gematria would come out to 616), it must remain suspect because such a reading seems motivated in that it conforms more neatly to Nero’s gematria.


How does the ancient Jewish Wedding tradition foreshadow Christ and the church? I remember something about the ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony being a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church.  Kay Arthur authored a novel that illustrates this idea, entitled With an Everlasting Love.

So, what are the specifics of the ancient Jewish Wedding ceremony and how do they foreshadow Christ and the Church?

As I understand it all Jewish brides are stolen, they are snatched away.

  All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up
  by surprise.” The bride was then led to the groom’s house by a wedding
  procession of women carrying lighted lamps, similar to the Parable of
  the Ten Virgins that we will explore in next month’s Personal Update.

Traditionally the Father of the Bride and the Father of the groom along with the groom negotiate terms for the brides hand and the covenant is sealed with wine. The groom then goes off to prepare a place in his father's house for his bride.  The groom then comes in an evening unannounced and snatches his bride away.

Bride and groom retreat to the bridal chamber prepared by the groom and the couple consummate the marriage and share their bridal week together. They then come out of the bridal chamber to celebrate the marriage feast with friends and family.

Parallels:

Christ sealed His covenant for His bride with His own blood depicted by wine
Some believe Christ will steal His bride at the rapture
Some believe that Christ like the groom is preparing a place for us as promised in John 14:2
Some believe the bridal week is likened to the seven year tribulation where the bride will be with the groom
Some believe the marriage feast will be like the millennial reign of Christ


Why did Jesus address Yahweh as God at the Cross? Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus addressing Yahweh as 'Father'. But we see at Matt 27:46 Jesus addressing the  Father as `God':

  "And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

One is eager to know the deeper meaning of that way of addressing. What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the particular way Jesus addressed the Father just before His death at the Cross?

St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 27:46 explains that

  He calls Him His Father, in that He is God; He calls Him His God, in that He is man: wherefore, when He says, My God, My God, etc., it is clear that He is speaking insofar as He is a man; hence, He groans, to express the greatness of His human suffering.


Why was David disqualified from building the temple? In 2 Samuel 7, King David seems to have a heart to build a temple for God.  However, he seems to be disqualified for some reason, but his son is identified as the one who will build it instead.
What was it about David that disqualified him in particular from building the temple?  He was a man of war, of course, but why would that preclude his involvement in the building of a place of worship?

After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”
3 Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.”  4 But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:
5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’  2 Samuel 7:1-7

When David provoked the anger of God by counting the fighting men in Israel, the punishment was so severe. Then  God commanded David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (1 Chronicles 21) to pray to the LORD to have mercy on Israel. David called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.
David then decided to build the Temple there at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David then commenced the building of the Temple of God immediately. But God already forbade David from building the Temple as David had shed much blood.

  1 Chronicles 22:1-10 (NIV)

  Then David said, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also
  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”

  So David gave orders to assemble the foreigners residing in Israel,
  and from among them he appointed stonecutters to prepare dressed stone
  for building the house of God. He provided a large amount of iron to
  make nails for the doors of the gateways and for the fittings, and
  more bronze than could be weighed. He also provided more cedar logs
  than could be counted, for the Sidonians and Tyrians had brought large
  numbers of them to David.

  David said, “My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house
  to be built for the Lord should be of great magnificence and fame and
  splendor in the sight of all the nations. Therefore I will make
  preparations for it.” So David made extensive preparations before his
  death.

  Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house
  for the Lord, the God of Israel. David said to Solomon: “My son, I had
  it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But
  this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have
  fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because
  you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a
  son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from
  all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will
  grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will
  build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his
  father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel
  forever.’

Prophet Nathan also prophesied long before David married Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, that David was not the one to build the Temple.

  He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish
  the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will
  be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by
  men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. (2 Samuel 7:13-14, NIV)

Before Solomon was born, God already decided that Solomon should build the house of the Lord. David was not qualified because his hands were stained with blood. Moreover, David's purpose was to establish the kingdom of Israel. After 300 years of war with the inhabitants of Canaan, it was time to make an end to turmoil. David had the responsibility to build a powerful nation for Israel, the people of God. The reign of Solomon was the right time to build the Temple. God wanted to build His house in a peaceful environment, without shedding of blood in the country. After David defeated all enemies of Israel, the nation was in peace and his son Solomon received the honor of building the Temple of the LORD.


Where the church should gather? Ok, where i gather, we have a Brethren-like "house church" system, which means that we have no building for the chuch meeting. But the number of members are increasing and we are about to face a decision: split the members into 2 house groups or go up and rent a hall in order to gather everyone at one place.
We had a discussion about that with the elders and one argument was that

There is no reference of a christian regular gathering model in the New Testment other than house gathering (eg. Act 2:46; Rom 16:5, 14, 15; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). And the reference of the Temple in Acts 2:6 wasn't properly a christian meeting, but a practice of Judaism transfered to Christianity at that time.

But the counter-argument to the above was that

There is no doctrine at all about the place of gathering in the New Testment. We have doctrine about how to gather, what to do and how to do almost everything in the church meeting, how to order the meeting, even the necessity of gather, but no word is written about where the meeting have to be done. We only have examples and to make theology out of examples we need to (specially) consider the context, and in considering the early church context (historical, cultural, religious, thological) we see why they gathered in houses, but this is no such thing as a limit, but a solid ground for us to build uppon.

The controversy
After the discussion, the question was settled: are the examples of house gatherings in the new testment an evidence of a theological stablishment, a oral doctrinal statement and a common sense at the early church that just houses are expected to host the Church regular gathering? Or just the natural flow that the Holy Spirit choose?
My questions

Is there any writting from a reliable source of church meeting in the early church (400AD-) outside the context of a house host?

Is there any writting from a reliable source that the church had a prohibition in the theological ground for hosting a meeting in a rented or built hall instead of the house context?

Is there any good argument about why should we host the church regular meeting in a hall building, if there is no example of that in the NT?

Sorry for my bad english, portuguese speaker here. God bless.

By way of answer, I refer you to this article on the history of Christian meetings. I'll summarize some sections.

In the first century, Christians generally met in homes, especially the homes of more prominent members.

  The Acts of the Apostles portrays the first Christian community in Jerusalem as gathering in the temple colonnades and “breaking bread in their homes.” As the Christian message gained a wider hearing in eastern Mediterranean cities, early believers commonly met in the homes of the community’s more prominent members. Though houses came in various styles and sizes, an atrium in a Roman villa (or a spacious dining room of a Greek house) would accommodate the needs of the small Christian communities.

By AD 150, even though the church had grown significantly, the pattern had not changed much:

  Justin’s defense before Rusticus also suggests that although the Christians in Rome were becoming fairly numerous, they did not abandon meeting in homes, even if that meant the Christian community could no longer assemble in one place. Thus, the house-church pattern, first articulated in the New Testament, continued for the first generations of the church’s expansion in the Roman world.

However it does not appear that this was done for theological reasons.

  Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?” “Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?”

100 years later, around 250AD, Christians were meeting in buildings converted specially for the purpose. One example was unearthed from the siege of Dura-Europos in 256AD.

  [One of these houses] had been altered to become a Christian church. The private residence was modified by removing one interior wall in the dining area, creating a larger room for Christian services. A small dais at the eastern end of the hall probably served as the worship center. Benches were installed around the walls of an interior courtyard, perhaps to mark off a place of instruction. In yet another room, a canopied baptismal font was erected, flanked by frescoes of Adam and Eve, and the Good Shepherd—perhaps signifying the Fall and Redemption.Though it began as a private house, after renovation all domestic use ceased, and the building became property of the church.

Very shortly after that, churches were being purpose-built.

  Unlike the house churches, which looked outwardly like private dwellings, the churches erected [around 260AD] were large structures. They were designed to accommodate the throngs of new believers who swelled the church’s ranks. In some cases, Christian communities acquired property adjacent to the renovated house churches, tore down or modified their properties, and built spacious new prayer halls.

Another fifty years and church building were becoming highly visible.

  Church buildings attracted the ire of Diocletian and his colleagues during the last and greatest persecution of early Christianity (303–311). It was left to the patronage of Constantine (312–337) to rebuild these churches in an even more splendid manner.

To answer the question specifically, by 400AD church buildings were commonplace, and had been around for at least 150 years. Some examples of these buildings still exist today.


What were Martin Luther's opinions on the Crusades? Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, was critical of many practices of the Catholic Church. The Crusades were fairly recent in his day. What were his opinions on them? Did he see them as righteous expressions of faith, or did he see them as a further sign of the church's corruption?

Luther originally condemned the Church being involved in military conquests and advocated non-violence against Muslims
Martin Luther first wrote about the Crusades, and general armed conflict against Muslims (whom he often refers to as "Turks" given that the Ottoman Empire was the primary military force of the day), in his Explanation of the 95 Theses in 1518.
He was suspicious of the motives of the Church
Luther thought that many of the church leaders were warmongers, rather than fighting war out of injustices (bolded text in this and subsequent quotes are mine).

Many, however, even the “big wheels” in the church, now dream of nothing else than war against the Turk. They want to fight, not against iniquities, but against the lash of iniquity and thus they would oppose God who says that through that lash he himself punishes us for our iniquities because we do not punish ourselves for them.

He also argued that the Church preferred to encourage wars against Muslims rather than admit the wrongs of indulgences and give back money from that.

So much is this so that they wanted to devour the Turks and after this banish the Christians themselves to a condemnation worse than that of hell rather than remit one penny of their indulgence tax, to say nothing of upholding the wrong done to their name and body.

He thought that the church should stay within the realm of the spiritual, not the military
Luther was critical about taking up a "sword of iron" rather than a "sword of Spirit".

And that is the truest explanation of the decrees of the fathers which so strongly forbid the bearing of arms to clerics. One can see now that an angry God, observing that we choose to interpret this sword as one of iron rather than one of the Spirit and the gospel, treats us most justly when he grants the sword which we desire and takes away that which we do not desire. Because of this there never have been in the world more cruel devastations of war than those among Christians, and the holy Scriptures have hardly been more neglected than among Christians. Lo, you have the sword which you have desired. Indeed, this explanation is one which is worthy of hell.

He argued for non-violence
Luther noted that the Crusades were a common source of indulgences, but thought that participating in a war had a poor rationale for the forgiveness of sins. He argued that it was better to serve the Muslims than to "lose your soul" by taking up arms against them.

It is well known that indulgences are granted either for participating in the war against the infidels or for building churches or for some other common need of this life. But none of these reasons is so great that love is not incomparably greater, more righteous, and more reasonable. […]
Especially is this so since it is of such great importance to give aid to souls, so that the faithful should prefer to serve the Turks and be killed in body than to lose their souls.

For reference, his contemporary Thomas More criticized this position, saying that while it was all well and good to preach non-violence out of a call to holiness, the end result was that many Christian people and churches were killed, which he found unjust.
With Muslim invasions in to Europe, Luther's stance had changed to support armed resistance against Muslims, but as a secular war
Suleiman the Magnificent led a campaign into Europe in the 1520s, capturing Belgrade in 1521 and laying siege to Vienna in 1529. Luther wrote On War Against the Turk in 1528 and changed his stance to be supportive of armed conflict against Muslims.
He was still suspicious of the motives of the Church
Luther argued that the Catholic Church had the money to effectively fund a war against the Turks, but that they preferred to use the war as an excuse to tax money from commoners in Germany (and presumably other areas).

The popes have never seriously intended to wage war against the Turk; instead they used the Turkish war as a cover for their game and robbed Germany of money by means of indulgences whenever they took the notion […] If they had seriously wished to fight the Turk, the pope and the cardinals would have had enough from the pallia, annates, and other unmentionable sources of income so that they would not have needed to practice such extortion and robbery in Germany.

He still argued that the church should not be involved in military matters

If the pope and his followers were to attack the empire with the sword, as the Turk does, he should receive the same treatment as the Turk; and this is what was done to him by the army of Emperor Charles before Pavia. For there stands God’s verdict, “He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” I do not advise that men go to war with the Turk or the pope because of his false belief or evil life, but because of the murder and destruction which he does.

But what motivated me most of all was this: They undertook to fight against the Turk in the name of Christ, and taught and incited men to do this, as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ.  This is absolutely contrary to Christ’s doctrine and name […] This is the greatest of all sins and is one that no Turk commits, for Christ’s name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored. This would be especially so if the pope and the bishops were involved in the war, for they would bring the greatest shame and dishonor to Christ’s name because they are called to fight against the devil with the word of God and with prayer, and they would be deserting their calling and office to fight with the sword against flesh and blood. They are not commanded to do this; it is forbidden.

…if I were a soldier and saw a priest’s banner in the field, or a banner of the cross, even though it was a crucifix, I should run as though the devil were chasing me; even if they won a victory, by God’s decree, I should not take any part in the booty or rejoicing.

However, Luther argued that the secular authorities should wage a war, so long as it was self-defense and not a "Crusade"
Luther argued that it was the duty of the Emperor to protect their people against the Turks who he saw as aggressors maltreating their captives.

Nevertheless, what the emperor can do for his subjects against the Turk, that he should do, so that even though he cannot entirely prevent the abomination, he may yet try to protect and rescue his subjects by checking the Turk and holding him off. To this protection the emperor should be moved not only by his bounden duty, his office, and the command of God, nor only by the unchristian and vile government that the Turk brings in, as has been said above, but also by the misery and wretchedness that comes to his subjects. They know better than I, beyond all doubt, how cruelly the Turk treats those whom he carries away captive. He treats them like cattle, dragging, towing, driving those that can go along, and killing out of hand those that cannot go, whether they are young or old.

Luther viewed the government as the "left-hand kingdom" of God (part of his "two kingdoms doctrine") and said that it could call for war, and a person would be obligated to fight in that war in obedience to God.

In the first place, if there is to be war against the Turk, it should be fought at the emperor’s command, under his banner, and in his name. Then everyone can assure his own conscience that he is obeying the ordinance of God, since we know that the emperor is our true overlord and head, and he who obeys him, in such a case, obeys God also, while he who disobeys him disobeys God also. If he dies in this obedience, he dies in a good state, and if he has previously repented and believes on Christ, he is saved.

But Luther argued that such a war should only be for self-defense, rather than for glory or increasing land.

In the second place, this banner and obedience of the emperor ought to be true and simple. The emperor should seek nothing else than simply to perform the work and duty of his office, which is to protect his subjects; and those under his banner should seek simply the work and duty of obedience. By this simplicity you should understand that there is to be no fighting of the Turk for the reasons for which the emperors and princes have heretofore been urged to war, such as the winning of great honor, glory, and wealth, the increasing of lands, or wrath and revengefulness and other things of the kind; for by these things men seek only their own self- interest, and therefore we have had no good fortune heretofore, either in fighting or planning to fight against the Turk.

Luther made it clear that he did not view the Emperor to be the head of Christendom, as had sometimes been stated in his day.

He has been urged, as head of Christendom, as protector of the Church and defender of the faith, to wipe out the faith of the Turk, and the urging and exhorting have been based on the wickedness and vice of the Turks. Not so! The emperor is not head of Christendom or protector of the Gospel or of the faith. The Church and the faith must have another protector than emperor and kings. They are usually the worst enemies of Christendom and of the faith, as Psalm 2:2 says and the Church constantly laments. With that kind of urging and exhorting things are only made worse and God is the more deeply angered, because that interferes with His honor and His work, and would ascribe it to men, which is idolatry and blasphemy.

He also condemned imposing the Christian faith on others
In particular, killing people due to their faith was something that Luther despised.

Among us there are Turks, Jews, heathen, non-Christians, all too many of them, proving it with public false doctrine and with offensive, shameful lives. Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy [i.e. Catholics] and other false Christians live. The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things, if God is not to become angry with us. If we pervert His order and throw it into confusion, He, too, becomes perverse and throws us into confusion and all misfortune, as it is written, “With the perverse thou art perverse.” We can perceive and grasp this by means of the fortune we have heretofore had against the Turk. Think of all the heartbreak and misery that have been caused by the cruciata, by the indulgences and crusading-taxes, with which Christians have been stirred up to take the sword and fight the Turk, when they ought to have been fighting the devil and unbelief with the Word and with prayer.

One of his later hymns asked for God to protect against "the murder by the Pope and Turks"
Luther's hymn "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort" ("Keep us, Lord, faithful to your word" or "Lord, keep us in Thy Word and Work") is thought to have been written in 1541 for a prayer service at Wittenberg following the Siege of Buda in which the Ottoman Empire captured the city. The second line includes:

und steur' des Papsts und Türken Mord
(And control the murder by the Pope and Turks)

The hymnal Geistliche Lieder titled the song a "A hymn for the children to sing against the two arch-enemies of Christ, and His Holy Church, the Pope and the Turks". However, I'm not able to find any evidence that Luther gave it that title.
So while Luther argued for the secular authorities to fight the Turks, rather than the religious authorities, he still viewed it as entirely appropriate to pray to God for deliverance from them.


Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ? Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ? Did they ever state that in a written form?

Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ?

Definitely not.  Zwingli did offer a hand of brotherhood to Luther, but Luther refused it, telling Zwingli and the Swiss church "We cannot acknowledge you as brethren".

Roderick C. Meredith's history of the Reformation was recently serialized in Tomorrow's World magazine.  One section describes the final meeting between Luther and Zwingli, Martin Luther Unleashed:

THE FINAL MEETING OF LUTHER AND ZWINGLI

Schaff describes this meeting:

  On Monday morning he arranged another private conference between the
  Saxon and the Swiss Reformers. They met for the last time on earth.
  With tears in his eyes, Zwingli approached Luther, and held out the
  hand of brotherhood: but Luther declined it, saying again, “Yours is a
  different spirit from ours.” Zwingli thought that differences in
  non-essentials, with unity in essentials, did not forbid Christian
  brotherhood. “Let us,” he said, “confess our union in all things in
  which we agree; and, as for the rest, let us remember that we are
  brethren. There will never be peace in the churches if we cannot bear
  differences on secondary points.” Luther deemed the corporal presence
  a fundamental article, and construed Zwingli’s liberality into
  indifference to truth. “I am astonished,” he said, “that you wish to
  consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach
  much importance to your doctrine.” Melanchthon looked upon the request
  of the Swiss as a strange inconsistency. Turning to the Swiss, the
  Wittenbergers said, “You do not belong to the communion of the
  Christian Church. We cannot acknowledge you as brethren.” They were
  willing, however, to include them in that universal charity which we
  owe to our enemies (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church,
  Vol. VII. Hendrickson, 1996 (1888). pp. 644–645).

Thus we see that Luther parted from Zwingli, not in the feeling that the Swiss party was guided by the Holy Spirit, but that Zwingli was guided by a different “spirit” than himself. Indeed, there is ample testimony, even among Protestant writers, that the reformers did not have the “unity of the Spirit” that only God’s Spirit can bring.

Notice Plummer’s account of Zwingli’s desire to avoid this pathetic disagreement:

  But, there is no need to doubt his declaration that he had carefully
  avoided corresponding with Luther, because he says, “I desired to show
  to all men the uniformity of the Spirit of God, as manifested in the
  fact that we, who are so far apart, are in unison one with the other,
  yet without collusion.” They did not remain in unison, as all the
  world knows; and it is one of the many sad facts in the history of the
  Reformation that Luther declared Zwingli’s violent death to be a
  judgment on him for his eucharistic doctrine (Plummer, pp. 141–142).


What is the biblical basis for all people meeting God when they die? I recently saw a billboard proclaiming "After you die, you will meet God"

What is the biblical basis for this?

My first thought, was that according to my understanding of Christianity, those headed down would never meet God

My Second thought was, I thought was Saint Peter's job, to meet the heaven bound at the gates.

What is the biblical basis for all people meeting God when they die?

The short answer (from the Bible) is that after a person dies, they await the resurrection when they will face judgment.  Nobody is excused.

  Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27–28)

There are two resurrections, of the righteous and the unrighteous.  That covers everybody.  We are judged on what we did while we were alive:

  And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (Revelation 20:12)

The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes summed up the meaning of life this way:

  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

There is no biblical basis for thinking Saint Peter is standing at the gates of heaven to either allow or deny access.  It's a charming thought, but not quite right!