Ancient imagery beasts used in Christian symbolisms? Ancient  imagery beasts used in Christian symbolisms?
We have all heard of unicorns!

The unicorn is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. The unicorn was depicted in ancient seals of the Indus Valley Civilization and was mentioned by the ancient Greeks in accounts of natural history by various writers, including Ctesias, Strabo, Pliny the Younger, Aelian and Cosmas Indicopleustes. The Bible also describes an animal, the re'em, which some versions translate as unicorn.
Interpretations of the unicorn myth focus on the medieval lore of beguiled lovers, whereas some religious writers interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The myths refer to a beast with one horn that can only be tamed by a virgin; subsequently, some writers translated this into an allegory for Christ's relationship with the Virgin Mary. Unicorn (Wikipedia)

A little while ago, I was watching the Harry Potter’s movies and made note that within the series, there are some strange and mythological beasts portrayed in the books/movies.
In particular there is the hippogryph and the phenix.
Now the phenix is used in medieval imagery to symbolize the the resurrection.

The phoenix symbolized renewal in general, as well as entities and concepts such as the Sun, time, the Roman Empire, Christ, Mary, and virginity.
The phoenix myth is also part of early Christian traditions. Some scholars have speculated that these early phoenix legends may have their origins in the bennu of Egyptian mythology. In the 19th century, scholastic suspicions appeared to be confirmed by the discovery that Egyptians in Heliopolis had venerated the bennu. However, the Egyptian sources regarding the bennu are often problematic and open to a variety of interpretations. Some of these sources may have actually been influenced by Greek notions of the phoenix, rather than the other way around.
The Old English Exeter Book contains an anonymous 677-line 9th-century alliterative poem consisting of a paraphrase and abbreviation of Lactantius, followed by an explication of the Phoenix as an allegory for the resurrection of Christ. - Phoenix (mythology)

Detail from the 12th-century Aberdeen Bestiary, featuring a phoenix.
As for the hippogryph, it used as a symbol of Christ’s two nature.

In Ancient Greek folklore, the hippogriff, or sometimes spelled hippogryph, is a legendary creature which has the front half of an eagle and the hind half of a horse.
In some traditions, the hippogriff is said to be the symbol of love, as its parents, the mare and griffin, are natural enemies. In other traditions, the hippogriff represents Christ's dual nature as both human and divine. - Hippogriff

Buckbeak the Hippogriff
Thus my question is as follows: What other ancient mythological beasts (if any) have been used in Christian imagery to express Christian beliefs through symbolism?
The more obscure and ancient the better!

In mythology gargoyles were believed to frighten away evil spirits.  They are often used to guard cathedrals or castles.  Sometimes they are depicted as vessels for demonic possession.  Of course, they also have a very practical architectural function:

In architecture, and specifically in Gothic architecture, a gargoyle is a carved or formed grotesque with a spout designed to convey water from a roof and away from the side of a building, thereby preventing rainwater from running down masonry walls and eroding the mortar between.  When not constructed as a waterspout and only serving an ornamental or artistic function, the correct term for such a sculpture is a grotesque, chimera, or boss. There are also regional variations, such as the hunky punk. Just as with bosses and chimeras, gargoyles are said to protect what they guard, such as a church, from any evil or harmful spirits. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle

There is an interesting French legend concerning St. Romanus, bishop of Rouen (died circa 640 A.D.) and a monster called Gargouille:

La Gargouille is said to have been the typical dragon with bat-like wings, a long neck, and the ability to breathe fire from its mouth. Multiple versions of the story are given, either that St. Romanus subdued the creature with a crucifix, or he captured the creature with the help of the only volunteer, a condemned man. In each, the monster is led back to Rouen and burned, but its head and neck would not burn due to being tempered by its own fire breath. The head was then mounted on the walls of the newly built church to scare off evil spirits, and used for protection. In commemoration of St. Romain, the Archbishops of Rouen were granted the right to set a prisoner free on the day that the reliquary of the saint was carried in procession. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle#Legend_of_the_Gargouille

The dragon or Gargouille was recorded for the first time in 1394. The account described how, in the wild swamps on the left bank of the Seine a huge serpent or dragon rampaged, who "devoured and destroyed people and beasts of the field". Romanus decided to hunt in this area but could only find one man to help him, a man condemned to death who had nothing to lose. They arrived in the serpent's land and Romanus drew the sign of the cross on the beast. It then lay down at his feet and let Romanus put his stole on him as a leash, in which manner he led it into the town to be condemned to death and burned on the parvis of the cathedral (or thrown into the Seine according to other authors). This legend was the origin for the bishops' privilege (lasting until 1790) to pardon one prisoner condemned to death each year, by giving the pardoned man or woman the reliquary holding Romanus's relics in a procession. (Apology – I can’t find the Wiki link to this paragraph)
In the 12th century, before the use of gargoyles as rain spouts, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister:

What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them.

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans all used animal-shaped waterspouts. During the 12th Century, when gargoyles appeared in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church was growing stronger and converting many new people. Most of the population at this time was illiterate, so images were very important to convey ideas. Many early gargoyles depicted some version of a dragon, especially in France. In addition to serving as spouts for water, the gaping mouths of these gargoyles evoked the fearsome destructiveness of these legendary beasts, reminding the laity of the need for the church's protection. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle#Catholic_Church

The Wikipedia article about the Gargoyle has lots of fascinating images, but I don’t know how to copy and paste them. Fascinating subject!


What is the Catholic position on Exodus 20:4? This weekend my son and I participated in our Scouting council's annual Ten Commandments hike in which we walked to 10 different churches and heard a short talk on each of the 10 commandments from Exodus 20. The lone Catholic church on our route (churches were largely represented based on proximity, not theology) was assigned the following passage:

  You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.—Exodus 20:4 (NJB)

(My very first problem in researching this question is that, while this was labeled the second commandment by the organizer of the hike, it's the second half of the first according to Catholic tradition.)

It seems we had some bad luck since the priest who was representing the Catholic position did not do a very good job of explaining idolatry to us. He mostly explained that the stained-glass windows (which were not unusual in the other churches we visited) and the statues (which were absolutely unique to that church) were not worshiped. Rather they were to be a reminder of the great saints of the past, their deeds, and that we could ask them to pray for us as we might ask a friend.

The particular difficulty I'd like to resolve in my own mind is why Catholic churches use statues, which are carved, rather than flat images. The Orthodox church specifically uses icons in order to avoid idolatry. Stained glass, for better or worse, has become a nearly universally accepted church decoration. To me, either of these art forms go a long way to helping remind us (and especially visual learners) the deeds of the saints without risking they will be worshiped. So what is the Catholic reasoning for including carved statues in places of worship?

Update: It occurs to me that if I'd asked the question a month or so ago, I would have been confronted with the statues many Protestants do set up in our churches: the Nativity scene.  My parent's church, where I was baptized, even includes a little ritual of having a child bring new figures to be added to the scene over the weeks of Advent.  In my rush to judgement, I didn't stop to think if I had a plank in my own eye.  Talk about hypocrisy!  So, I really am not trying to "score points" on my Catholic brothers and sisters or further the cause of the Reformation. I want to understand.

I was just reading this EWTN article on the 10 commandments in connection with another post on this site, but it's appropriate here too.
And I won't attempt to justify my Church beyond what the Catechism says:

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

CCC 2131-2132
Exodus states a few chapters after the Decalogue

Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.

Exodus 26:18-20
I'm not trying to point out inconsistencies.  I assume that the Bible is internally consistent and it's done a good job of ordering society for a long time.  It's pretty apparent that the Jews of the Bible had no problem smashing opposing nation's idols and there's no history of ancient busts of David or Solomon popping up.
So, as I meant to say a bit ago, when I referenced the EWTN article on the 10 commandments, they reflect the Natural Law.  They're not strange and arbitrary commands of God, as they would be if they favored iconography over sculpture.  One could say that you'd be less given to idolatry given an icon over a statue, but that'd be a natural law argument, not a purely theological one.
Finally, if Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is made for man and not the other way around, then why is art not made for man?
Sacramentals do assist in prayer, some austere monastic types not like them, but others do.  To be able to talk to Mary, who hears your prayer and intercedes on your behalf, is something that can be helped through art.
A good priest will tell you, if you need something, turn to Mary.  Turning, is a physical act which requires a subject and when you see a statue of Mary in a Church, and to her left is Jesus, Body blood soul and divinity in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.  You've got a good basis for a spiritual platform from which to voice your petition.
The gist of it is, sacred art assists, rather than detracts, in the authentic worship of God.


How has war been justified within Christianity, with respect to the New Testament and preferably the Gospels? Just really a question of curiosity on how the faith has, at times, turned down the wrong path of aggression and violence, specifically wondering what passages of the New Testament were used as justification for such action.

On war: how has it been justified within Christianity, with respect to the New Testament, preferably the Gospels?

Many Christians believe they have the right to defend themselves against an open aggressor, even to go to war if necessary. See: Here.

We can notice in the Gospels that Our Lord never once condemned a soldier for being a soldier. In fact he once actually healed a Centurion’s servant.

  The Faith of a Centurion

  5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. - Matthew 8:5-10

If Jesus thought that war carried on by soldiers was unjustified; why then did he heal the centurion’s servant?

Romans tells us we should be subject to civil authorities at all times.

  Submission to the Authorities

  13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Romans 13:1-5

Let us not forget that St. Michael the Archangel fought the evil angels in the Book of Revelation.

The Book of Revelation demonstrates that the Angels fought Satan and his legions. Now if the Angels can fight against evil, it stands to reason man can fight in order to protect himself from being killed, pillaged and women from being raped!

  Satan Thrown Down to Earth

  7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back. - Revelation 12:7

Remember too that peace is to be sought out when possible. Let us recall the words of Jesus himself in the Gospel of St. Luke.

  31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. - Luke 14:31-32

Never once did Jesus openly condemn being a soldier or making war on an enemy.

I really do not see how it is not possible to not fight forces of evil. Hitlers and Stalins must the be defeated. Surely others will arise and we must be ready.


According to a Catholic interpretation of the Bible, was Jesus being glib in Matthew 6:34? When Jesus says "Sufficient for a day is its own evil," was Our Lord making light of the fact that a lot of bad stuff happens every day?

I'm reading this as part of a scripture study with some scouts tomorrow and I'd like to know what Catholic commentators and saints have to say about this, and the particular attitude that a line like this would be stated with.

You might look at the commentary of St. John Chrysostom, who is a 4th century Saint and Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.  He explains in his 22nd Homily on the the Gospel according to Matthew:

  By evil here He means, not wickedness, far from it, but affliction,
  and trouble, and calamities; much as in another place also He says, Is
  there evil in a city, which the Lord has not done? nor any thing like
  these, but the scourges which are borne from above. And again, I, says
  He, make peace, and create evils: [Isaiah 45:7] For neither in this
  place does He speak of wickedness, but of famines, and pestilences,
  things accounted evil by most men: the generality being wont to call
  these things evil. Thus, for example, the priests and prophets of
  those five lordships, when having yoked the cattle to the ark, they
  let them go without their calves, [1 Samuel 6:9] gave the name of evil
  to those heaven-sent plagues, and the dismay and anguish which thereby
  sprang up within them.

  This then is His meaning here also, when He says, sufficient unto the
  day is the evil thereof. For nothing so pains the soul, as carefulness
  and anxiety. Thus did Paul also, when urging to celibacy, give
  counsel, saying, I would have you without carefulness.

  But when He says, the morrow shall take thought for itself, He says it
  not, as though the day took thought for these things, but forasmuch as
  He had to speak to a people somewhat imperfect, willing to make what
  He says more expressive, He personifies the time, speaking unto them
  according to the custom of the generality.


What is the difference between a Bible College and a Seminary? I see some Christian education institutions refer to themselves as "Bible College" and some as "Seminary" and some as "Bible College and Seminary". What is the difference between those, if any?

In the US, a Bible college is typically a 2 year or 4 year school that specializes in Christian undergraduate education. (typically with programs like Biblical Studies, youth ministry, things like that, rather than traditional math/science/teaching programs you'd find at say a Christian liberal arts school)

A seminary is typically a graduate school that specializes in training people for the ministry (pastorate, counseling etc).

A school that advertised as both may offer a double degree or cater to people seeking either a four year degree in something bible related, or people heading into the ministry. Doing both is good synergy and they may be able to save a pastor some time (get under grad and seminary done in 5 years instead of 6 or something).


Why do Carmelite nuns change headwear? In this movie regarding the life of St. Therese of Lisieux, the girl who wants to become a saint, there is a scene wherein she changes the color of her clothing and headdress after participating some time at the monastery. What is the meaning of this color change that marks her becoming a nun?

The first official stage of the religious life is the noviciate.
Novices are not admitted to vows until they have successfully completed the prescribed period of training and proving, called the novitiate. This usually lasts one year.

This is the period that the member of a religious community undergoes prior to taking vows (poverty, chastity and obedience) in order to discern whether she or he is called to vowed religious life.

The novice's habit is often slightly different from those of professed members of the order. For instance, in communities of women that wear a dark veil over the head, novices often wear a white one (like the case of the Carmelite Order).


Does Genesis 30:25-43 defy genetics? Genesis 30:25-43 is the story about Jacob's flock increasing by making streaks on Laban's goats using wood branches, so that

  they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (Genesis 30:39, NIV)

This just doesn't make sense. It doesn't even come close to the Lamarck's Evolution Theory. How is this possible?

It is possible that the genetic engineering techniques practiced were part useless and part real.  The attempt to imprint color on the hide of sheep by seeing stripes during intercourse is folklore. However, by coincidence/destiny the majority of sheep who underwent this silly attempt may have had recessive genes that produced color in subsequent generations without any other divine influence.   Also more believable is that possibly some of the stronger animals that Jacob segregated for procreation may have had recessive genes of color.  The result is that with Jacobs meddling he may have artificially increased the procreation of animals with colored recessive genes, effectively increasing his wealth by his efforts as foolish as they may have been in part.  His ability to perform this genetic engineering may be in part with what he subconsciously recognized in breeding history, partly shaped by folklore and substantially blessed by God.

For a more technical analysis you might be interested in this A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacob's Sheep


How often are books quoted outside of their own book? I am trying to put an estimation together of how much of the bible we have today. I know that there are multiple books missing from the bible.

1 Chr 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, (KJV)
Num. 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, (KJV)

Further examples are in Jos 10:13, 1 Kng 11:41, 2 Chr 9:29 12:15 20:34 33:19, 1 Cor 5:9, and Jude 1:14.
My question is which books of the Bible are quoted by other books outside of their own pages, and how many times each?

If you are interested in an exhaustive listing of every verse quoted from the Old Testament in the New Testament (OT books quoted outside of their pages - in the NT), then I recommend looking here:

Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament

The list contains not only the direct or indirect citations, but also the allusions which are particularly worthy of attention: and the passages are given in the order of the Books of the New Testament. (The list has been divided up into five parts to decrease the download time.)

There is also the: Analytical Table and Harmony of the Mosaic Law, Prophecies in the Pentateuch and Historical Books (vvs. prophecy was given & vvs. it was fulfilled), and Probable Occasion When Each Psalm Was Composed that are of notable interest.

If you are asking about scriptures quoted that don't appear anywhere else in the Bible, see the listing below.

Lost books

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18)
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41)
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29)
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29)
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29)
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29)
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22)
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34)
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16)
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14)

To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example,

the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7) which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus.
the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25)
the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22)

More at www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-booksBlue Letter Bible Study Resources: Charts and Outlines


Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt? Do we have a good idea as to which Pharaoh(s) were around during the time of Moses' life? What internal and external evidence exists to back up those claims? Do any Christian traditions attach any significance to correlating the events of Moses' life to the reign of a specific Pharaoh?

The movie The Prince of Egypt mentions Ramses as the name of Moses' adoptive mother's son (and the future Pharaoh, both when Moses kills the Egyptian at 40 and when he returns to Egypt when he is 80), but I don't know what the basis is for this claim.

Of course this is more of a historical-archeological question as the Bible does not directly answer but I have stumbled across a fairly convincing argument that would place Thutmose II as the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus.

I first came across the argument in Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History. He typically pays attention to ancient monuments and secular history, as he was a historian at Oxford. He was also a Jewish man and Jewish historian converted to Christianity which makes him the most reliable source of Jewish culture and history at the time of Christ.

In his book he argues that all the records of Thutmose II best fit into the Exodus narrative:

  Now this Thothmes II. began his reign very brilliantly. But after a while there
  is a perfect blank in the monumental records about him. But we read of a general revolt after his death among the nations whom his father had conquered. Of course, one could not expect to find on Egyptian monuments an account of the disasters which the nation sustained at the Exodus, nor how Pharaoh and his host had perished in the Red Sea. But we do find in his reign the conditions which we should have expected under such circumstances, viz., a brief, prosperous reign, then a sudden collapse; the king dead; no son to succeed him; the throne occupied by the widow of the Pharaoh, and for twenty years no attempt to recover the supremacy of Egypt over the revolted nations in Canaan and east of the Jordan. Lastly, the character of his queen, as it appears on the monuments, is that of a proud and bitterly superstitious woman, just such as we would have expected to encourage Pharaoh in "hardening his heart" against Jehovah. But the chain of coincidences does not break even here. From the Egyptian documents we learn that in the preceding reign - that is, just before the children of Israel entered the desert of Sinai - the Egyptians ceased to occupy the mines which they had until then worked in that peninsula. Further, we learn that, during the latter part of Israel's stay in the wilderness, the Egyptian king, Thothmes III., carried on and completed his wars in Canaan, and that just immediately before the entry of Israel into Palestine the great confederacy of Canaanitish kings against him was quite broken up. (Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History, Vol 2)

What adds striking support of this argument is just this year an online article was published saying a ‘Harvard University educated archaeologist and president of the Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck, states an array of archaeological discoveries evidence a crisis during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose II’. You can find the find the article here.

In this article it is mentioned that:

  The mummy of Thutmose II is the only corpse of a pharaoh during the Eighteenth Dynasty covered with cysts from an unknown malady. (Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck)

Possibly his body was fished out of the sea and mummified and that the ‘cysts’ were part of the plagues/boils which he had suffered?  This article is really worth reading as it makes a strong case that fits the Moses narrative.  The article does not mention the Bible or Moses, but I find it hard to believe the author is not making the implication but for some reason not stating it.


Why didn't Syriac Christianity keep Aramaic as their liturgical language? Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Orthodox Christians? , The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same).

But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language?

Is it because:

Arabic became the lingua franca and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic.

If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language?
Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity?

Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points.
Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons?

I hope I lay out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge. Thank you!

The Oriental Orthodox churches are somewhat divided on this, many still celebrate the Divine Liturgy in Syriac (which is a later dialect of Middle Aramaic). One of the biggest reasons is that many Oriental Orthodox consider the Syriac Peshitta to be the authoritative scriptures, some even insisting on New Testament Aramaic primacy (such as the Nestorians/Assyrian Orthodox, although many would not consider them to be Oriental Orthodox). Many Orthodox traditions still observe the Divine Liturgy in older languages, even when those languages are no longer spoken (such as Church Slavonic). This is especially true of the Syriac Orthodox who can rightly claim that theirs is the oldest Divine Liturgy text and is therefore closest linguistically to the language spoken by Jesus and the apostles. It is generally accepted that they are the oldest Christian church in existence, which is another motivation for not changing the language and tradition.

At the same time, many Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox churches have switched to using Arabic in services (such as the Coptic Orthodox). The reality is that most people no longer speak Syriac (just as hardly anyone still speaks Church Slavonic - possibly no one). Services have begun to be in Arabic in the Middle East for the same reasons services have begun to be in English in North America - people understand it. Add to this the fact that most Syriac Christians experience intense persecution and it is no wonder they have begun using the common spoken language in order to preserve the faith.

In regards to the first tradition to localize the language to the people, many Orthodox traditions did this prior to the Protestant Reformation. Study the history of the Eastern church and you will see that it often used the language of the people. Oddly enough, Church Slavonic itself was originally designed to be in the language of the people, which is why it is so ironic that churches are hesitant to change it to use the spoken language of people today.


Are Christians monotheists and what is the nature of Jesus? (i.e. Give me the basics of Christianity please) I am not familiar with Christianity so I have some questions.

1- Is Jesus one and only god? I have read some other questions and answers and I have found that there is a real God and Jesus is his son and Jesus is also a god. Isn't it illogical I mean there are 2 god and they have infinite power.

2- Is there any other god except two of them?

3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?

4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?

These are my questions for now. Sorry for my english.

This answer will mostly link to other answers already on the site - please understand that I'm really taking this as a basic "Give me the basics of Christianity."  Please understand, normally this would be off-topic, as we are really more geared to experts, but I think having one basic answer here is helpful.

This answer really needs to explain the two big points of Christianity:

What is the Nature of God, and
What is the Nature of Jesus.

These two things are both as basic as it gets and hard to understand for non-Christians. As such, putting them in one place helps to define what Christians believe.

Note: This is stuff that all Nicene (read "Mainstream") Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant believe at one level (+ or - a few very small fringe groups <2%) at a basic level, although there may be nuances in the particulars.  The only real exceptions are those deemed 'heretical' since 325 or a few modern splinter groups, of which the Jehovah's Witness and LDS churches would be the largest outliers.

What is the Nature of God? (Answer: Trinitarian)

  1- Is Jesus one and only god?

In classic, Nicene Christianity, we believe in "The Trinity," namely that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three persons but also one.  While it seems illogical, it's not really - it's just that there is no good metaphor to explain it.  The Athansian Creed puts it as such:

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

For more, see

What is the Doctrine of the Trinity

Is God Three or One?

  2- Is there any other god except two of them?

Again, please see what the Trinity is - it isn't two (or three) but one, even though they have different personalities.

What is the Nature of Jesus? (Christology) (Answer: Hypostatic Union)

  3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?

Classically, Jesus is "fully god and fully man".  If he is not God, then he has sins of his own for which he must pay. If he is not man, he is not an acceptable sacrifice. As both God and man, he can subject himself to death as He desires, and overcome it as well.

As to 'why did he let them kill him?'  The classic answer is John 3:16 -

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Along with that are several models of salvation, all of which seek to answer why it is that God required the death of his son to "satisfy" or "atone for" the sins of a fallen humanity, or if there was simple some "victory" that had to be won.

For more see

Was Jesus created?

Why did Jesus have to be fully God and Fully Man?

  4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?

Jesus wasn't "born" he was begotten.  Per John 1, He was from the beginning - and "without Him was nothing made that was made."  He was incarnated - meaning he became man - in Palestine around 4BC, lived, died on a cross, and was resurrected.

He sent the Holy Spirit, but does not "beget" more gods because God already is - he is eternal.


Where can I download the Antwerp and Paris Polyglot Bibles in PDF form? Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, 4 important Polyglot Bibles were published.

The 1st one was the Complutensian Polyglot, issued in 1522.

The 2nd one was the Antwerp Polyglot issued 1569-1572.

The 3rd was the Paris Polyglot issued in 1645.

The 4th was the London Polyglot issued in 1657.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(book)

I tried searching for these to download as PDFs, but I was only able to find the Complutensian and London Polyglots.

Complutensian here - https://archive.org/details/complutensianpolyglot

London here - https://archive.org/details/walton_polyglot/

Is there any website where I can download the Antwerp and Paris Polyglot Bibles in PDF form?

Having hunted for these myself recently, I don't know of anywhere to download all volumes of either. However, I did find a few places where one can access certain volumes from each:
In Google Books, I found this file which seemed to be primarily for the New Testament, including a short preface. You will note, however, that the text for much of the Old Testament seems to have been appended for some reason (the wisdom literature and the prophets only, I think) - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_XOTP0rctIQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&redir_esc=y
The first volume of the Paris Polyglot, including the text for the Pentateuch and seemingly the front matter for the entire collection, can be found here - https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/712682?show=full
Hope two years isn't too late to be useful. Enjoy!


What is involved in the consecration of a Church? What is actually involved in consecrating a Catholic church? Does a priest or bishop just come and say a prayer over/towards the building? If so, what is the prayer? Are there any liturgical gestures or motions that the priest/bishop has to do? I'm interested in the details

The solemn ceremony of dedication, or consecration of a church is found in the Roman Pontifical and is performed de jure by a bishop. The simpler rite, which is given in the Roman Ritual, is generally reserved to bishops, but may be also undertaken by a priest with episcopal delegation. I know of cases where a priest have re-consecrated a Catholic Church after the church had been desecrated with permission of the local ordinary.

The whole ceremony can be read in the Dedication of a Church
and an Altar from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. It is too long to go into all the details here, so I will leave it here where one can peruse this at one's leisure.

The main highlights that one should be aware of is the actual Prayer of Dedication and the Rites of Anointing, Incensing, Covering, and Lighting the Altar.

You can see Cardinal Seán O'Malley presiding at the Mass of Dedication of the new Saint Bonaventure Church in Manomet, MA. in this YouTube video: Dedication of the New Saint Bonaventure Church.


What is the theological import behind genealogies? So, several places in the bible are just lists of names:

Genesis 5
I Chronicles 1 - 10
Matthew 1
Luke 3

all come to mind.

In Matthew 1, in particular, I have pulled sermons out of the only four women named (each one has a really good story!), but I wonder what use a genealogy is from a theological point of view.  Obviously, there are good reasons to include them or they wouldn't be there, but I wonder how/if one should make use of these in a pulpit.

I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of outlining the importance of the genealogies here.

There are several purposes for including the genealogies in Scripture, some theological, some merely cultural.

On the cultural side:

  The Hebrews shared the predilection for genealogies which prevailed
  among all the Semitic races. Among the Arabs, for instance, no
  biography is complete without a long list of the hero's ancestors.

On the theological side:

  The priests and Levites had to prove their
  legal descent in order to fulfil the honourable and remunerative
  functions of their respective offices. On returning from the
  Babylonian Captivity several were excluded from the priestly class
  because they could not prove their Levitical pedigree (Ezra 2:62;
  Nehemiah 7:64).

Finally (and most importantly), the genealogies help to establish Jesus as the Messiah, since the Messiah was to come from the line of David.

As for how to use them from the Pulpit, use them as they were intended, and don't fall into the trap of making more of them than what they really are.  It's very easy to take a few verses and read a whole lot of meaning into them that aren't there.  Stick to the Word, and what it says, and you can avoid a whole lot of confusion.


Do Protestants accept the similarity between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant? Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark New Testament and they believe it on a scriptural basis (source).This is the same stance Orthodoxy has (source).

Do Protestants accept the similarity between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?

If yes,  then, that would mean agreeing with Catholic (and Orthodox) interpretation.

If not, why not?

The following are the similarities between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant as seen in light of Biblical typology (Catholic Interpretation):

The Ark

The Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed (Ex. 40:34-35)
David was rejoicing in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. 6:16)
David said, Why did the Ark of the Lord visit me? (2 Sam. 6:9)

Mary

Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35)
John the Baptist leaped for joy in the presence of Mary (Lk. 1:41)
Elizabeth said, Why did the mother of the Lord visit me?( Lk. 1:43)

Also, the Greek word ἐπισκιάσει was the same Greek word used in the overshadowing of the Ark ( Exodus 40:35 LXX).In the entire Scriptures, only Mary and the Ark were ascribed of that verb.

Protestants of different denominations are encourage to answer.

If you look hard enough you can always find similarities. The correspondences between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant remind me a lot of Islamic arguments that Muhammad was the prophet Moses prophesied about in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 rather than Jesus.

According to Muslim apologists, there are many similarities between Moses and Muhammad, many of which do not apply to Jesus (source: whyislam.org):

both were prophets
both had normal human parents
both had wives and children
both had normal deaths
both had spiritual and legal missions, and both served as both a prophet and governor
both were generally accepted as leaders by their people, unlike Jesus
both waged war

But according to Christian apologists, most of these miss the point. While they may be true, the important characteristics of Moses were not that he had a wife and children. Instead the similarities we should be looking for are things like this (source: answering-islam.org):

Moses performed miraculous signs
Moses spoke directly with God
Moses was assured of his calling by God directly, rather than by his wife
Moses's revelations did not need to be abrogated by himself
And unlike Muhammad, Moses never thought he was demon possessed, never became delirious, and never spoke words of Satan (and the link above contains other disturbing claims)

For most Protestants the points of similarity given in the question between the Ark and Mary would look like you're grasping at straws. The similarities are real, but unimportant. The important things about the Ark of the Covenant are the following:

On the day of Atonement the High Priest would take the blood of the bull and goat (which were sacrificed as sin offerings), and sprinkle it over the Ark, making atonement for the nation. This soteriological role points only to Jesus. Some Catholics call Mary Co-Redemptrix, but that is not even official Catholic Dogma!
The cloud of God's presence was positioned above the Ark, demonstrating that God dwelled within his people. But they were cut off from him, behind a curtain only one man could pass through once a year, outside a temple restricted to the priests, behind a system of expensive and bloody sacrifices.
Mary bore Jesus the Son of God, who came to dwell among his people (John 1:14). God's presence at the Ark is a tiny shadow of his presence in the person of his Son, but as such the Ark is pointing to Jesus, not Mary. I don't think the Ark could really be considered to have ever carried God, rather it was the location where God descended to be with his people. If anything, the way in which Mary led to God dwelling with his people is far beyond what the Ark did, and comparing her with the Ark is a negative comparison.
God was holy and so the Ark was holy. But almost all protestants reject the idea of Mary's immaculate conception believing instead that she is a sinner like the rest of us. There is no comparison between the Ark's holiness and hers. Mary's righteousness is imputed to her through her faith in the gospel, not because she carried the embryonic Jesus.


Which prophecies have definitely been fulfilled? The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) makes many predictions about the future, often regarding nations or peoples quite distant from those making the prophecy.

If we ignore any arguments about the date of authorship and assume that the prophecy is genuine and predated the event it is describing, which prophecies have been fulfilled according to the generally accepted historical record?

One example would be in Ezekiel 26:12 regarding the city of Tyre:

  They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

It is an uncontroversial statement to say that Alexander the Great threw the houses of mainland Tyre into the sea.

Several are listed at this site: http://100prophecies.org/

The site does include several prophecies that are supported primarily by the Biblical record, but several include events that meet the criteria you asked for.

Excerpts:

  Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed Bible prophecy:
  Matthew 24:1-2 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy
  fulfilled: 70 AD

  In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus prophesied that the Temple of Jerusalem would
  be destroyed and that its destruction would be so complete that not
  one stone would be left standing on top of another. His prophecy was
  fulfilled about 40 years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and
  tore down the Temple. The destruction was so complete that even the
  foundations of the Temple were dug up, according to Josephus, an
  historian who wrote about the destruction

  Jesus prophesied that the Jews would be exiled Bible prophecy: Luke
  21:24 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy fulfilled:
  70 AD

  In Luke 21:24, Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by
  foreigners and that the people of Israel would be forced into exile.

  About 40 years after Jesus delivered that prophecy, it began to find
  fulfillment. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70, and again
  in the year 135.

  During the first destruction, Josephus, an historian who lived during
  the first century, claimed that 1.1 million Jews died and that
  hundreds of thousands were forced out of the country and into exile
  and slavery.

  During the second destruction, Cassius Dio, an historian who lived
  during the second century, claimed that 580,000 Jews were killed, and
  that 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were destroyed.

  The exiled Jews were taken to countries throughout the Roman Empire
  and eventually scattered and re-scattered throughout the world.

  Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple Bible
  prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 Prophecy written: About 530 BC Prophecy
  fulfilled: 70 AD

  During the time of Daniel, who lived about 2600 years ago, the
  Babylonians invaded Judah (the southern part of the land of Israel)
  and took many Jews, including Daniel, as captives to Babylon.

  The Babylonians also destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple,
  in 586 B.C.

  In Daniel 9:24-26, Daniel delivers a prophecy that Jerusalem and the
  Temple would be destroyed, again. Within these verses, Daniel provides
  a chronology by which certain events would occur. First, the Jews
  would return from captivity and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.
  Afterwards, an "anointed one," or Messiah, would appear, but he would
  be rejected. Then, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, again.

  These events later played out during the century in which Jesus had
  announced that he was the Messiah.

  Edom would be toppled and humbled Bible prophecy: Jeremiah 49:16
  Prophecy written: Sometime between 626-586 BC Prophecy fulfilled:
  About 100 BC

  In Jeremiah 49:16, the prophet said that Edom, a long-time enemy of
  Israel, would be destroyed. Edom's capital city, Petra, was carved out
  of a mountain side and had great natural defenses. Nonetheless, it was
  destroyed and the kingdom of Edom no longer exists. Today, Petra is
  part of Jordan. The city was conquered by the Romans in the year 106
  AD but flourished again shortly after that. A rival city, Palmyra,
  eventually took most of the trade away from Petra and Petra began to
  decline. Petra gradually fell into ruin.

There's also this site: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

Which lists some more, such as...

  The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy
  seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the
  rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to
  let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of
  ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150
  years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of
  these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years
  before the Jews were taken into exile.

  The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine
  suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to
  the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the
  time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of
  Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948,
  and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in
  the locations and in the sequence predicted.


Jesus Christ purchased us with his blood - parties involved According to these verses and others, God/Jesus purchased/redeemed us with his blood

  Revelation 5:9

  And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book,
  and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed
  us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people,
  and nation;

  Acts 20:28

  Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit
  has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he
  bought with his own blood

Who was the receiving party -  I mean the blood?

This seems to be a misunderstanding of terms on your part.

Remember first that our English translations often miss nuances in translation.  Words carry different meanings.  These phrases are generally understood to mean that Jesus paid the price for our sins.  That can certainly connote the idea of a purchase in the normal sense, as in "I paid for my groceries".  However, it's generally understood in the same sense as a criminal paying the price for his crimes, as in going to jail, being executed, etc.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I'd be interested to see references that say otherwise) there isn't any major group in Christianity that actually views these as speaking as a transaction with a buyer and a seller.

Rather, it's an expression of the fact that there is a price attached to sin.  It's a price we sinners can never pay, and since we can't, Christ paid it for us.


What evidence is there that Jesus was a carpenter? I was about to say this in another discussion somewhere else, and wondered: do we know that?  As in "it's mentioned or at least hinted at in $book $chapter:$verse"?

Or is it just a very likely conjecture?

We know that Joseph was a τέκτων (tekton)- traditionally a carpenter but literally, any craftsman who worked with his hands, from Matthew 13:55 (Is this not the carpenter's son?).  Traditionally, boys would follow in their father's occupation, hence the tradition that Jesus was a carpenter.

Additionally in Mark 6:3, we get the same word describing Jesus himself. (Is this not the carpenter?). Mark is probably the older source ( the Farrer hypothesis ) from which Matthew is drawing. With Matthew's desire to portray Jesus as king, it makes sense that he would prefer to move such a menial task to the dad and let people just assume that Jesus would have been trained up in the family trade.


According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, were the Levitical sacrifices also penal substitutions? I am not a proponent of penal substitutionary atonement. While considering this question, I considered whether my position is incorrect, and the language of Isaiah 53 necessarily implies penal substitution. I asked myself if a Hebrew father would be reasonable to say something similar to these words while consoling his own son who asked him why they slaughter a sin offering.

It occurred to me that, Christ's atoning sacrifice and the Levitical sacrifices being considered in parallel, if these latter are penal substitutions according to the Old Covenant, I might have to reconsider my position on the matter.

So, my question is:

According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, are the Levitical sin offerings in their very nature penal substitutions? If so, what exegetical arguments are given to support that conclusion?

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 3.7.6) and Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, v3, III.7) are two Reformed theologians who make a number of exegetical arguments from Old Testament passages to defend penal substitution.  I'll focus on their treatments of the sin offering and similar sacrifices, on the following points:

Significance of blood (Leviticus 17)
Placing of hands and bearing of sin (Leviticus 16)
Satisfaction by a substitute (Deuteronomy 21)

The significance of blood
Hodge begins by arguing for the significance of blood in OT sacrifices for expiation, that is, "to cover [sin] from the sight of God’s justice."  He cites the prohibition on eating blood in Leviticus 17:10–12, and writes:

The last clause of the verse, which in our version is rendered, “For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,” is more literally and correctly rendered, “For blood by (its) soul or life makes atonement;” or, as Bähr and Fairbairn translate it, “The blood atones through the soul.” The latter writer correctly remarks, “This is the only sense of the passage that can be grammatically justified; for the preposition ב after the verb to atone (כפר) invariably denotes that by which the atonement is made; while as invariably the person or object for which is denoted by ל or על.”

Based on this analysis, Hodge argues that this and similar passages cannot be considered mere symbols of devotion or means of reforming a sinner, and must be understood as "giving soul for soul, life for life."
Bavinck cites the same passage to argue that the blood itself achieves atonement:

The idea was not a death for the sake of death but to obtain by it the blood that had to effect atonement. [...] the blood is the bearer of the soul, the carrier of a life that had again been made free from sin after and by the slaying.

The placing of hands and the bearing of sin
Hodge and Bavinck argue that the placing of hands on the sacrifice is significant.  Bavinck writes that "by the laying on of hands, the offerer transferred his sin to the animal":

In Scripture the laying on of hands always implies some kind of transmission: of a blessing (Gen. 48:13; Matt 19:13), of a curse (Lev. 24:14), of an office (Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9), of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), and so on, and similarly in the case of bloody sacrifices as well as burnt and thank offerings (Lev. 1:4; 3:2) for sin that has been acknowledged and confessed.

Hodge calls special attention to the goats of Leviticus 16, arguing that two goats are needed in order to fully portray the atonement:

In the solemn services of the great day of atonement, the import of this rite is rendered especially clear. It was commanded that two goats should be selected, one for a sin-offering and the other for a scape-goat. The two constituted one sacrifice, as it was impossible that one could signify all that was intended to be taught. Of the scape-goat it is said, “Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, . . . . and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.” This renders it plain that the design of the imposition of hands was to signify the transfer of the guilt of the offender to the victim.

Once transferred, the victims are said "to bear the sin" of the offender.  Hodge argues that in this context this phrase must refer to expiation, not spiritual renovation:

In point of fact the words in question [נָשָּׂאצָיֹו;] always refer to bearing the punishment and thus removing the guilt of sin, and never to the removal of moral pollution. This is plain, (1.) Because נָשָּׂא is interchanged with סָבַל which never means to remove, but only to sustain, or bear as a burden. (2.) Because usage determines the meaning of the phrase and is uniform. In Numbers xiv. 34, it is said, “Ye shall bear your iniquities forty years.” Leviticus v. 1, “If a soul . . . . hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness; . . . . if he do not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus v. 17, “He is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus vii. 18, “The soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus xvii. 16, “If he wash not . . . . then he shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus xix. 8; xx. 17; xxii. 9, “They shall keep my ordinance, lest they bear sin for it.” Numbers ix. 13, If a man forbear to keep the passover, he shall be cut off from the people, “he shall bear his sin.” See also Numbers xviii. 22, 32. Ezekiel iv. 4, 5, it is said to the prophet enduring penance, “So shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.” “Thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days.” “Lie thou upon thy left side . . . . according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity.” Ezekiel xviii. 20, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” In all these, and in other like cases, it is simply impossible that “bearing sin” should mean the removal of sin by moral renovation. The expression occurs some forty times in the Bible, and always in the sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin.

Satisfaction
For treatment of the idea of satisfaction more explicitly, we must turn to other types of offerings.  Regarding Numbers 35:31, Hodge writes:

In Numbers xxxv. 31, it is said, “Ye shall take no satisfaction (כֹּפֶר, λύτρα, pretium), for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death . . . . the land cannot be cleansed (יְכֻפַּר; Septuagint, ἐξιλασθήσεται; Vulgate, nec aliter expiari potest) of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” Here again there can be no mistake. To cover sin, כּפֵּר, is to expiate it by a penal satisfaction; that expiation is expressed, as we have seen, by כֹּכֶּר, which literally magnifies that which covers, and, in such connections, that which covers sin so that it no longer demands punishment.

Here, only the muderer's own blood can satisfy.  But in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, when the murderer cannot be found, the death of a heifer can satisfy:

A כֹּפֶר is a satisfaction. This satisfaction must be made either by the offender or by some one in his stead. In the case of murder, if the perpetrator could not be discovered, a victim was to be slain in his stead, and thus satisfaction was to be made. The law in reference to this case makes the nature and design of sin offerings perfectly plain. The elders of the nearest city were commanded to take a heifer which had not borne the yoke, and wash their hands over it in attestation of their innocence of the blood of the murdered man; the priests being present. The heifer was to be slain, and thus expiation made for the offence.

Verses 7 and 8 contain the testimony of the elders:

‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. 8 Accept atonement, O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for.’ [ESV]

Hodge concludes, "The removal of guilt by a vicarious death is, therefore, the Scriptural idea of a sin offering."
Summary
Bavinck and Hodge are both quick to note that the Old Testament sacrificial system had a number of deficiencies, such as its applicability to only a few sins, the sinfulness of the priests, and its requirement of endlessly repeating sacrifices.  Its effectiveness thus ultimately depended on Christ's atonement, but it nonetheless served as a type that pointed to that perfect sacrifice.  Thus, they argue that OT indications of the significance of the blood, the transmission of guilt, and the substitute's satisfaction are key elements in Christ's sacrifice, and evidence for the penal substitutionary view of atonement.


Music Ministry in Evangelical Free Church of America I have a desire to start a Music Ministry in an EFCA local assembly that sings to recorded Contemporary Praise and Worship music. How long should I be committed to this assembly before being allowed to exercise my gift?

Short answer: ask the pastor and/or worship leader in your local church.

Long answer: The Evangelical Free Church is an association of churches, which is less binding than a true denomination.  As such, each individual church has a great deal of autonomy in the everyday workings of the local church.

My brother and my father are both pastors at EFCA churches. I have been a worship pastor at an EFCA church.

In the church where my brother and father serve, they have an extremely talented group of musicians. The pianist has a Master's degree in music. The bassist plays in a professional jazz band. The guitarist spent the first half of his life as a performing musician in a couple of well known mainstream bands.  At that church, it would be difficult to join the worship team in those positions - not because of your longevity in the church, but because the existing musicians are extremely talented and consistent.

I served as worship pastor in a much smaller church. If someone came to visit who had reasonable musical skill and was willing to play, I would bring them onto the worship team as early as the very next week.

In general, the larger the church, the more difficult it will be to join the worship team. Still, this is more of a function of your relative skill in your instrument than a function of how long you have been attending.

Also, a church will be more willing to give you a leadership position if they believe you are willing to stick around. When I moved to a new city, I began attending church immediately. I sat down with the pastor, explained my experience and why I had moved churches (because I moved for work) and was invited to join the worship team that next week.

Hope this helps!


Which Christian churches have an entirely unpaid/lay clergy? Of those Churches what is their form of governance that allows them to run smoothly lacking fulltime ecclesiastical professionals? How does one ascend into a leadership role in the Church?

Quakers and Mormons have no paid staff in their local assemblies.  In the national bodies, however, there is usually some renumeration or support, in order to retain staff.  The truth is that very few would consider it wise to have a national organization without any accountability, which is what an all-volunteer lobby would be.

Additionally, many more Baptists than you might think have volunteer staff. Finally, there are a great number of unpaid missionaries, itinerant preachers, and supporters of various causes that may fit into this category. Usually the local pastor is supported by the congregation, but the national staff has many more volunteers.

Finally, if you look at what a Roman Catholic priest earns, it's pretty close to nothing.

All that said, most mainstream Protestant churches will pay their clergy, based on Paul's commentary on paying preachers in 1 Timothy 5:18.  Those churches relying on unpaid staff tend to be less mainstream and more "feeling" driven, with the feeling being that preaching is a gift like any other.


God's sovereignty and man's predicament in light of evil forces Since God is sovereign and is not answerable to anyone about his doing, why should God allow the evil to continue to grow and the aftermath of man suffering the consequences while the fallen demonic or angelic beings who foment man's rebellion against God go scot-free for thousands of years?  Would God not know that we humans are pawns in the hands of two awesome spiritual forces that war against each other? At any given point of time in human history, we do not find righteous people exceeding the evil doers?  This remains a conundrum for me.  Any answer.

I recommend reading the book of Habakkuk, particularly the first two chapters. It deals with this same train of thought. Habakkuk, in a nutshell, asks God why there's so much wrong and injustice, so much murder, etc, and why God is seemingly not doing anything about it.

Habakkuk 1:1-4 The Message (MSG) Version
"The problem as God gave Habakkuk to see it: God, how long do I have to cry out for help before you listen? How many times do I have to yell, “Help! Murder! Police!” before you come to the rescue? Why do you force me to look at evil, stare trouble in the face day after day? Anarchy and violence break out, quarrels and fights all over the place. Law and order fall to pieces. Justice is a joke. The wicked have the righteous hamstrung and stand justice on its head."

God's reply to Habakkuk, in a nutshell, is: brace yourself, because justice coming. This was all on the eve of God using the Babylonian nation as a lightning rod against His people, Israel.

In short, God is not blind. He knows what's going on, sees all the evil, but He is longsuffering, because He doesn't want anyone to perish. He promised to deal with evil and reward righteousness and godliness, and it may seem like He's slacking on that promise, but He's not.

2 Peter 3:9 HCSB
"The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance."

It's just like in the days of Noah:

1 Peter 3:20 KJV
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Think on it from this perspective: yes, another day going by means another day evil gets to flourish, but it's also a day wherein the same evil has an opportunity to repent. As for the angels who have fallen, we must simply accept that they are reserved for judgment.

2 Peter 2:4 KJV
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

2 Peter 2:4 Young's Literal Translation
"For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,"

As for our role in this massive spiritual war, don't underestimate our purpose. Yes, this is an incredible battle with some serious beings on the battlefield, but we, though being in the physical right now have been equipped to do some spiritual damage- read Ephesians 6. Remember that as a Christian, you are on a team- the winning team.

consider this incident in the book of Daniel:

Daniel 10:12-13
"Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia."

As for the side of good seemingly not winning over evil, Remember the divine perspective. Remember that God is eternal and sees the beginning from the end. Christians do not fight for victory- we fight from victory. We have already won, no matter what things may look like.

Highlights:

God is aware of evil
God is longsuffering, just as he was in the days of Noah, giving man a chance to repent.
God will reward the righteous and godly in due time; the fallen are reserved for judgment
We are in the physical, but we still can make a massive spiritual difference.
Christians are already victories.


Finding Ancient/Byzantine Greek texts used by choirs from Mount Athos Recently I came across some recordings of choirs from different monasteries in Mountain Athos (e.g. Vigil of the Holy Cross or just collections of chants from Vatopedi monastery). Where could I find some texts used in some of those hymns/masses/liturgies?
As it is obvious from the title of my question, I assumed that those are sung on Ancient or Byzantine Greek (I cannot tell the difference), but please do correct me if that is not the case!

I heard the Mount Athos chants recently as well. I'm not familiar with the Greek Orthodox liturgy at all, nor the Greek language, so I'm also having a terribly hard time trying to find reference for the lyrics. This won't be a very satisfying answer, but I thought I would just share the info I found so far.
From what I can gather, the first video you linked is a Τροπάριο (short hymn?) which is called Ανοιξαντάρια. The Greek wikipedia entry for Τροπάριο contains a reference to that specific chant, giving the first four words: "Ανοίξαντός σου την χείρα" (open your hand). I found various lyrics for this chant online, but they don't seem to match up very well with the video you linked. (I don't understand Greek though, so I could be wrong). The only other phrase I could catch being sung was "Δόξα Σοι ο Θεός Αλληλούια" (Thanks/Glory be to God, hallelujah) in various parts, like at the very end (timestamp 6:12).
The second video you linked contains chants for Holy Saturday, (the day before Easter). The first is "Holy Saturday Apolitikia", "Apolitikia" (Ἀπολυτίκιον) being the chant sung at dismissal. I could find at least the beginning of the lyrics here:

Ο ευσχήμων Ιωσήφ, από του ξύλου καθελών, το άχραντόν σου σώμα, σινδόνι καθαρά ειλήσας και αρώμασιν, εν μνήματι καινώ κηδεύσας επέθετο.

Good luck finding the texts. I think it would be easier for someone to find the lyrics who is familiar with the Greek Orthodox Liturgy. If you or anyone else finds more information, I'd love to hear about it.


Why Sarah was angry to Abraham about Hagar Why Sarah blamed Abraham when it was she who suggested to Abraham to take Hagar? I find Sarah's anger here to be unreasonable when it was her fault in the first place.

Many Biblical scholars believe that Sarah was upset that Hagar perceived herself more important for Abraham than Sarah. She wanted to become the "main" wife of Abraham.

  (Gen. 16:4) "... When she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes."

Some commentaries from http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-4.htm:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

"(4) Her mistress was despised.--Hagar, we are told in Genesis 16:3, was to be, not Abram's concubine, but his wife. She was to be Sarai's representative, and though now she would hold the highest place in the household next to Sarai, because of this relation to Abram, yet she would continue to be Sarai's maid. But no sooner had she conceived, than, proud of her superiority over her mistress, she wished to overthrow this arrangement, and, at all events, acted as if she was Abram's wife absolutely, and thrust Sarai aside."

Pulpit Commentary

"Verse 4. - And he went in unto Hagar. בּוא אֶלאּ, a linguistic peculiarity of the Jehovist, occurring Genesis 29:21, 30; Genesis 30:3, 4; Genesis 38:2, 9, 16 (Vaihinger, Davidson); but by some partitionists Genesis 29. and 30. are assigned to the Elohist (Tuch, Bleek, De Wette). And she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. As Hannah by Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:6); barrenness among the Hebrews having been regarded as a dishonor and reproach (Genesis 19:31; Genesis 30:1, 23; Leviticus 20:20), and fecundity as a special mark of the Divine favor (Genesis 21:6; Genesis 24:60; Exodus 23:26; Deuteronomy 7:14). Whether Hagar imagined Sarai to be through her barrenness "tanquam a Divino promisso repudiatam" (Lyra), or anticipated Sarai's displacement from her position as Abram s wife (Inglis), she, immediately on perceiving her condition, became insolent (cf. Proverbs 30:23)."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived,.... The formality of the marriage being over, he enjoyed her as his wife, and she immediately conceived by him:

and when she saw that she had conceived; when she perceived that she was with child:

her mistress was despised in her eyes; she thought herself above her, and treated her as her inferior, with contempt, and reproached her for her barrenness, as Peninnah did Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:6; and it was the more ungrateful, as it was at the motion of her mistress that she was given to Abram for wife."

Matthew Henry Commentary

"16:4-6 Abram's unhappy marriage to Hagar very soon made a great deal of mischief. We may thank ourselves for the guilt and grief that follow us, when we go out of the way of our duty. See it in this case, Passionate people often quarrel with others, for things of which they themselves must bear the blame. Sarai had given her maid to Abram, yet she cries out, My wrong be upon thee. That is never said wisely, which pride and anger put into our mouths. Those are not always in the right, who are most loud and forward in appealing to God: such rash and bold imprecations commonly speak guilt and a bad cause. Hagar forgot that she herself had first given the provocation, by despising her mistress. Those that suffer for their faults, ought to bear it patiently, 1Pe 2:20."


Can a non-Christian sell his soul? This Freakonomics podcast had an interesting discussion about a guy who challenged an atheist to sell his soul. The guy who bought claimed to be a Christian. The trope, of course, goes back a long way - its not called a Faustian bargain for nothing.

The question, however, is this. Is a man's soul something that belongs to him in the first place? Leaving aside for a minute that of the redeemed--namely those "bought by the blood of Christ," I wonder if the unsaved actually have possession of their own soul, and if so, if they would have rights to transfer it to another.

If not, then it would beg the question, what right does God have to redeem it. Own it, I could understand, since he made it--but how could he transfer it from someone else?

If a person does own their own soul, what is the mechanism by which it can be transferred? How would one know? What rights would adhere thereto?

In other words, does Faust actually make sense in Christian framework?

I'm going to make an assertion here (and I would be very happy to be shown wrong, in which case I'll readily delete this): there is no Biblical support at all for the concept of soul selling (or indeed of any other kind of explicit pact). The entire notion is a non-scriptural invention, along with such things (now generally denounced) as limbo for non-baptised children.

Without any scriptural support, all that is left is human invention, exaggeration and fancifulness (bites tongue hard to avoid obvious additional comment). In the absence of any scriptural basis to an answer, one would have to assume

  there is no basis to believe that anyone can sell their soul, or that any being is interested in purchasing it

(for the Christian meaning of "soul"). Any other answer would be pure speculation, or building upon traditions that are themselves based on pure speculation.


Does the Bible make a distinction between Christian and secular love? John makes this startling claim in his first epistle.

  1 John 4:7-8 (NIV)
  7  Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

If I am to take the obvious interpretation of this verse, then I must make one of two conclusions:

The act of loving causes us to be born of God, and thus saves us.
The act of loving is impossible unless we have been born of God.

The problem with the first, of course, is that it sets up an alternate, works-based mode of salvation.  This contradicts so much of the Bible, that I think we can immediately rule it out.

The second is problematic (albeit, less so), because it claims that non-Christians are incapable of love, or at least makes some distinction between the character of Christian and non-Christian love.  This seems to contradict observation, because (in my view, at least) many non-Christians live just as lovingly and compassionately as many Christians.  I would find it hard to swallow that their love is somehow less authentic than my own.

So, how do we explain this?  What is John getting at exactly, and how do we reconcile it with reality?

I'm interested in answers consistent with the protestant tradition, and particularly answers that are consistent with Arminianism.

Taking a simple definition of love as 'desiring actual good for someone because you care for their actual happiness', we can see that love arising from faith, is different in nature to secular love.    Here are some of the differences:

Faith brings light and knowledge upon what is actual good, therefore it produces the desire of true good for others. Secular love may seek evil for others, through ignorance, although accompanied by human affection. For example, a wife might not want her husband to go to church and worship God (which is for his actual good) because in her ignorance she denies the value of it. She loves him and would rather that he stay home to his personal harm.
Faith produces love for God by believing in his love for us. Therefore the love that springs from faith, seeks to enjoy the highest good (God) and out of that spring, seeks good for men. Human love has self as it's goal, or at least just a few humans under the title friends and family, which is in many ways just an extension of our self-identity.  Although human affection can make someone care deeply for another and be attended with many sacrifices, like a Mother over her infant, there is no higher spiritual motive and spring lifting those emotions onto a higher ground, having a higher object that arouses them, namely the glory and goodness of God.
The love produced by faith endures and can't be defeated.  Human love often fails. Two people deeply in love hate one another a few years later.  Christian love continues and endures as it is accompanied with holiness and so can't be smothered forever in anger, jealousy, ambition, greed, etc. Rather in suffering and loss it often flutters with more peace, patience and inhuman endurance, growing more and more gracious as it lives under the awe of God's glory.
Love arising from faith is a fruit of a spiritual life by the direct working of the Holy Spirit in those whose hearts are filled with him.  Therefore there is a spiritual loving influence that animates human affections within a Christian so that the fragrance of Christ is an accompanying aroma into the love of a Christian.  The spiritual element is a communion with God whereby his divine loving nature brings the heat of his light into our emotions, so that our deepest yearnings become loving desires that are inexpressible even as our own sinful nature opposes that inward yearning of love.  Human love has no additional sense of a spiritual holy realm diffusing it's life into ours.  Human love is often mixed with the unholiest of passions and appetites within hearts driven about by their lusts like wild animals.
Christian love causes actions not just sentiments. And this from faith, not mere self righteousness and a desire for the respect and love of others.

On each of the points I have raised I could add many biblical quotes but I did not want to create a thesis paper here, I had a feeling you are just looking for some overall concepts to divide the two.  But to leave a couple verses that illuminate principles above a bit let me just leave a few:

Even as a believer human love is not that great:

  If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (NIV, Matthew 7:11)

Human affection can go quite far, but still be secretly selfish based love:

  If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 13:3)

The Spirit produces Christian love:

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc. (NIV, Galatians 5:22)

Before we were Christian we actually all hated one another because we did not desire eternal salvation for anyone, nor did we desire the only great and good life in God:

  At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. (NIV, Titus 3:3)

One could go on on on separating love produced by the Spirit and mere human affection, but I am sure we can start to see the diference.


What is the essential argument in favor of the tripartite nature of man? A common belief regarding the nature of mankind is that we have a body, a soul and a spirit.  This is known as the Tripartite Nature of Man.

What is the essential argument in favor of this view?  I would also be interested to know how early in the Scriptures this is indicated or understood.  It would be really interesting to know how the Old Testament speaks of this and whether or not that idea was held by Jewish people prior to the coming of Jesus.

Your question is one with which I wrestled for several years before making these discoveries in Scripture and I hope that it will give you the answer you are seeking.

Genesis 1:26  and 27 King James Version

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

So I researched the word image and it's true meaning. The original Hebrew word was:

צֶּלֶם

  tselem (tseh'-lem) n-m.

    a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance
    (hence) a representative figure, especially an idol
    [from an unused root meaning to shade]

    KJV: image, vain shew.

notice the translation Phantom. this word has no connection to any physical substance, and in this case must be talking about other properties other than Physical. That leaves us to deduce that it must refer to spiritual characteristics.

Also please note the word * likeness* in verse 26. the original word used was:

  dmuwth (dem-ooth') n-f.

    resemblance
    (concretely) model, shape
    (adverbially) like

    KJV: fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Since the word is used in its adverbial form it means like, and the word our makes it plural.

Actually in the interlinear Hebrew translation  the phrase 'in our image' was:

בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ

  bə•ṣal•mê•nū

  which literally translated means 'in our image.'

This leaves us to understand that it is in reference to Spiritual beings and it must refer to a multiplicity.

So how do we get from there to what the likeness to that multiplicity means regarding man.

We must go back to:
Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

We need to begin with what is the breath of life.

Breath:
נְשָׁמָה

  nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f.

    a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal

    KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

Life:
חַי

  chay (khah'-ee) adj.

    alive
    (hence) raw (flesh)
    fresh (plant, water, year), strong
    (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively

    KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

It is imperative that we first understand that the noun here is nshamah or breath and chay alive is an adjective.

That 'God breathed  into his nostrils' means that God transferred from himself to man's nose his breath. The noteworthy point here is that since God is Eternal that of necessity requires that his breath is also eternal.

Why this is important lies in what is said next ' man became a living Soul.

The significance of that is that the Soul created by the breath of life is an eternal being.

The importance of that was given by Christ in:

Matthew 10:28  KJV

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The true significance of that statement is that only God has the ability to destroy the soul.

So now we have covered the body and soul, but if we are to be in the image of the trinity we need a third part, and that third part is the Spirit.

So what is the Spirit, and how is it different from the soul? The Hebrew word is:

πνεῦμα

  pneuma (pnyoo`-mah) n.

    a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze
    (by analogy or figuratively) a spirit
    (humanly) the rational soul
    (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.
    (superhumanly) an angel, demon
    (divinely) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit

    KJV: ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind

According to the Hebrew it is the rational soul, or the vital principle, or mental disposition. So the Spirit and soul are inextricably joined and the Spirit is the composite of all the persons knowledge and personality.

These are the conclusions I have reached from my study of the Bible.


Where does the story of the spider on the cross come from? I have a memory from childhood of being told not to kill spiders because there was a spider on the cross when Jesus was crucified. I cannot find any source in folklore (I doubt if it is anything else) and wonder if anyone else has heard this story before.

I am aware of the baby spider story related to the flight of Jesus -- a spider spun a web at the mouth of a cave to protect him and his family -- but I'm referring to a different story.

Okay, I did a lot of Googling using various search terms, all with "spider" and including one of "Jesus", "Christian", "Christianity", "Catholic", or "Orthodox" and one of "myth", "folklore", "folktale", or "legend". This is what I've found.
Web over the mouth of a cave
There are several versions of this one, but in every case, one party is fleeing from another and hides in a cave. A spider spins a web over the mouth of the cave, so the searching party assumes that their quarry is not inside because otherwise the web would have been broken.

David hiding from Saul (likely the original) - Wikipedia and spiderzrule.com
Mary, Joseph, and Jesus hiding during the flight from Herod - The Sutton Companion to the Folklore, Myths and Customs of Britain
Muhammed and Abu Bakr hiding from Quraysh soldiers - Wikipedia and spiderzrule.com
Saint Felix of Nola and Bishop Maximus hiding in an abandoned building. Twice! - Wikipedia
A World War II United States Marine - St. Luke the Evangelist Orthodox Church
Bonus: Yoritomo, a warrior from Japanese mythology hiding in a hollow tree - spiderzrule.com

Web over Jesus' cradle
This is where a spider spun a web over Jesus' cradle/manger and it protected Him from all harm.
I only found two sources with this: spiderzrule.com and The Encyclopaedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult Sciences of the World Volume 2 (twice).
The Christmas spider(s)
In this German/Ukrainian legend, spiders create cobwebs all over a Christmas tree and then something or someone changes the threads into gold and/or silver. This is believed to be the source of the traditions of hanging tinsel on the tree and putting a spider ornament on it.

Sunlight - Wikipedia
Father Christmas - spiderzrule.com (also mentioned on Wikipedia)
Child Jesus - kraftmstr.com (also mentioned on Wikipedia)

Spider on the cross
Unfortunately, I did not find any source with a story like this. In fact, the top Google results for "spider on the cross crucifixion" are almost all from this very website, Christianity Stack Exchange. If the tale does exist, I guess there isn't a record of it online. In that case, this question and answer is now the only record of it online!
So the answer to your question is (probably) nobody knows! If anyone does, they haven't said as much online (or in a book or article indexed by Google).


From Catholic perspective, what is the meaning of the tearing of the veil at the death of Christ? Matthew 27:51,

  And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split (NAB)

Mark 15:38,

  The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom  (NAB)

What do the Catholics teach about the significance of the veil which was before the Holy of Holies in the temple being torn from top to bottom?

St. Thomas Aquinas himself thinks only the outer veil was rent; he says in his Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel:

  And it ought to be observed that in the Temple there were two veils, namely, in the tabernacle, because there was the veil within the Holy of Holies, and there was another one, which was not in the Holy of Holies. And these two veils signify a twofold veiling, because the inside veil signifies the veiling of heavenly mysteries, which will be revealed to us: for then we shall be like to Him, when His glory shall have appeared. The other veil, which was outside, signifies the veiling of mysteries which pertain to the Church. Hence, the outer veil was rent, but the other one was not, to signify that mysteries which pertain to the Church were made known by Christ’s death; but the other veil was not rent, because heavenly secrets still remain veiled. Hence, the Apostle says: “But when Israel shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away” (II Cor. 3, 16). Hence, by the Passion, all mysteries, which were written in the Law and the prophets, were opened, as it is stated: “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him” (Lk. 24, 27). Or the rending of the veil signifies the dispersion of the Jews. And because their glory was in the veil that was rent at the Lord’s Passion, it was signified that all glory was divided from them.

The Fathers seem to think only the outer veil was rent:

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his collection of the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospel, the Catena Aurea on Mt. 27, quotes these:

  St. Augustine: de Cons. Ev., iii, 19: The wording sufficiently shews that the veil was rent just when He gave up the ghost. If he had not added, "And, lo!" but had merely said, "And the veil of the temple was rent,: it would have been uncertain whether Matthew and Mark had not inserted it here out of its place as they recollected, and Luke had observed the right order, who having said, "And the sun was darkened," adds, "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain;" [Luke 23:45] or, on the contrary, Luke had returned to what they had inserted in its place.

  Origen: It is understood that there were two veils; one veiling the Holy of Holies, the other, the outer part of the tabernacle or temple. In the Passion then of our Lord and Saviour, it was the outer veil which was rent from the top to the bottom, that by the rending of the veil from the beginning to the end of the world, the mysteries might be published which had been hid with good reason until the Lord's coming. "But when that which is perfect is come," [1 Cor 13:10] then the second veil also shall be taken away, that we may see the things that are hidden within, to wit, the true Ark of the Testament, and behold the Cherubim and the rest in their real nature.

  St. Hilary: Or, The veil of the temple is rent, because from this time the nation was dispersed, and the honour of the veil is taken away with the guardianship of the protecting Angel.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on Mt. 27:51 thinks both the inner and outer veils were rent (my emphasis):

  Ver. 51. The veil of the temple was rent. As there were in the temple two parts of the sanctuary, so there were two veils, or partition walls. The first sanctuary, called the holy, was separated by a veil from that part of the temple called the court of the Israelites. Into this outward sanctuary, called the holy, entered every day the priests that were in office. The second interior sanctuary, called the holy of holies, was also separated from the outward sanctuary by another veil. And into this holy of holies, no one was to enter except the high priest, and he but once a-year. Both these veils seem to have been rent at Christ's death: and by their being broken down, was signified first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all. …


Did Jesus die for our sins? I don't get this part.

Did Jesus die for our sins so that we could sin as much as we want to?

And if so, why is it a sin to eg. lie, steal, cheat, if Jesus already died for us so that we could sin?

No, Jesus did not save us so we can sin as much as we want to.  In fact, the actual consequences of sin are temporary pleasures and lasting pain.  Why, then, would Jesus want us to incur greater amounts of lasting pain?  Sin is always to our loss, perhaps not always physically, but we are not merely physical beings.  We are spiritual beings, so the spiritual consequences of sin are always to our loss.
The epistles are mostly instructions for holy living, and holy living is what we are saved to.  We are saved from sin and its penalty, but we are also saved to something.

For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.  1 Thessalonians 4:7 NASB
But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior  1 Peter 1:15 NASB

So, the assumption that sin is actually good is invalid.