Does the Bible give us any indication of why God created such a vast universe with so much stuff in it? We all know the universe is enormous, and this isn't the place to debate that. But why does it need to be so enormous? The only celestial bodies that could be counted as truly necessary are the sun, moon, and Jupiter (which blocks Earth from many meteor hits). Why create something 29 gigaparsecs wide when only a tiny corner of it is populated?

Does the Bible address this question?

I think any question that contains "why does this need to be so" is fundamentally flawed. The truth is nothing needs to be how it is. God could choose do it anyway He wanted to, and He choose to do it this way.

Now, We can speculate as to why He wants it that way, but short of scriptural support it's just speculation.

That said, Yes i think the Bible does give us some hints and here is some scripture as to the reasons the heavens are so big:

  Psalm 19 1-4 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
      night after night they reveal knowledge.

  3 They have no speech, they use no words;
      no sound is heard from them.

  4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
      their words to the ends of the world."

Romans 1:20

  "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So we can infer from these passages that tell us the universe is there to teach us about the nature of our Creator, that it's vastness is most likely to demonstrate the vastness of God Himself, Who is infinite and above, and beyond that which He created.


Why were Jehovah's Witnesses holding a Memorial Service for Jesus on Tuesday, March 26 2013? I was approached by two Jehovah's Witnesses who invited me to a memorial service for Jesus to be held on Tuesday, March 26th. The flier they gave me said that this is the anniversary of Jesus' death. Most Christians view Christ's death as taking place on Good Friday. Why are Jehovah's Witnesses saying it happened on a Tuesday?

Apparently, per Wikipedia, this date corresponds to Nisan 14, converting the date from the Hebrew Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar.

I don't believe they're saying it happened on a Tuesday.  In 2012, it was a Thursday.


What was the Sin of Gomorrah? We all know the sin of Sodom. But my question is, why was Gomorrah destroyed? Please give references to your answer.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their grievous sins along with other towns in the plain of the Jordan, except Zoar.

  Genesis 18:20-21 (NIV) Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down
  and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has
  reached me. If not, I will know.”

There were five cities in the plain of the Jordan - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim and Zoar.

  Genesis 14:8 (NIV) Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboyim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle
  lines in the Valley of Siddim.

After Lot and Abram were separated, Lot chose to live in the plain of Jordan.

  Genesis 13:11-13 (NIV) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the
  Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: Abram
  lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the
  plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the people of Sodom were
  wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.

The four cities - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim were destroyed but Zoar was spared because Lot pleaded the two angels to spare the town of Zoar as he wanted to run there for safety.

  Genesis 19:23-24 (NIV) By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen
  over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and
  Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

  Genesis 19:29 (NIV) So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he
  remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that
  overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

The city of Sodom was known for sodomy and that is exactly how we get this English word. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by prophet Ezekiel, ~1500 years later -

  Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV) “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did
  not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable
  things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by apostle Jude in the New Testament, ~2000 years later -

  Jude 1:7 (NIV) In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and
  perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the
  punishment of eternal fire.


What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God? It's said that Satan is a very smart creature.

Satan, and 1/3 of the other angels, chose what seems to be a very foolish fate. Knowing that God is all-powerful, we ask, what could have compelled Satan - presumably a rational, intelligent being - to choose what would clearly be, a terrible end for him?  Did he not know that God would win and that he would be punished forever? And what would be so compelling to the heavenly host, that a third of them would choose 'to reign in hell, rather than serve in heaven?'

The answer here is that Satan (as well as other angels) either did not know that God was indeed all-powerful, or what the meaning of all-powerful implies. As a Christian, I have come into many debates about the idea of Omnipotence, and everyone is familiar with the conundrum, 'If God is all powerful and all knowing, how can he be all good?' Satan is obviously familiar with this (in fact, I would not be surprised if he is its inventor.) The implication of this conundrum is that to make sense of God, you need to drop one of those three attributes.

Some Fathers are of the opinion that neither Satan nor the other angels were, prior to this, fixed in virtue and goodness, and thus were in a state where they could either decide to obey God or not. We must not overestimate the knowledge of angels, nor assume that because we now know something (such as the nature of the Trinity) it was always common knowledge of angels. It is clear in the temptation that Satan doesn't realize that the man Christ is God; so Satan repeatedly misunderstands - possibly willfully - who or what God is. To be fair on this one, pretty much no one knew exactly what was going on, even the demons who knew a bit more than the average person, but as Satan evidences, not a whole lot.

Finally, it seems to be agreed upon in all oral tradition that Satan's pride is the cause of all of this; his misunderstanding of God, (or shall we say, his assuming certain things about God) and his decision to rebel. It seems obvious that if you knew what God is you would never rebel (what would the point be?) but all of us know of people who apostatize - essentially deny what they knew before. Therefore to some extent it is immaterial what knowledge Satan had prior to his rebellion; he rejected it. We see an image of this in the man Judas Iscariot, who despite working miracles and being with the Godman, turns on him anyway. The cause in Judas' case seems to be considered Envy, so we also can't discount envy in Satan's rebellion as well, given its similarity.

There is a story told in our tradition that goes as follows.

  A certain saint had love for all creatures, even to the point that he
  prayed for Satan and the demons that they might repent. At the instant
  that he prayed this, Satan appeared to him and snarled, 'No, it is God
  who needs to repent!'

In the end, there is always the 'mystery of iniquity' as Paul says - the choice of the naked and inexorable will, even over and against all sense, all truth, all beauty and all goodness.


Communion of saints - Is there a Greek equivalent of "ecclesia penitens"? The doctrine of the communion of saints states that the body of Christ consists of three churches:

The Church militant, or Latin ecclesia militans, or Greek ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ στρατευομένη
The Church triumphant, or Latin ecclesia triumphans, or Greek ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ θριαμβεύουσα
The Church penitent, or Latin ecclesia penitens

Is there a Greek phrase which corresponds to the Latin ecclesia penitens found in any Catholic writings?

I'm not Orthodox myself, but in the book His Broken Body, the author says that while there is no official term in the Orthodox church for "Church penitent" or "purgatory," because there is no official dogma concerning these ideas, the concept nevertheless, practically, exists:

It is certain that Eastern Orthodox theologians do not use (and do not like) the word purgatory, mainly because they are concerned with its legalistic implications, the historical connection with the doctrine of indulgences and other possible misunderstandings... The Eastern Orthodox problem with 'purgatory' is not so much the idea of mercy after death as the legal concepts, terminology and dogmatization used to express it.
We can certainly affirm that Orthodox Christians hope and believe that prayers for the dead are, however mysteriously, effectual. But it is also very important to admit that this conviction is based more on apparition stories than on specific scriptural evidence. The beloved Dialogues of Pope Gregory the Great are famous for such stories, but there are many similar examples in contemporary Orthodox literature.

The author than sites examples of stories from Prologue from Ochrid and Eternal Mysteries beyond the Grave, before concluding

Such stories remind us that popular Orthodox theology has a version of purgatory that is hardly distinguishable from its Roman Catholic counterpart... The fact that Christians have always prayed for the dead comes with the unshakable certainty that the practice is indeed efficacious.


Did any ancient source believe in more than four gospels? I'm listening to a lecture series by Dale Martin (Professor of Religious Studies, Yale), and he makes the passing claim that during development of the New Testament canon there were some who thought that four  gospels should be considered authoritative, but some thought five, and some six.

I can't seem to find any ancient source to back this up. Certainly more than four gospels existed, but are there ancient sources that equates any of them as on par with the four canonical gospels? A list that includes the Gospel of Thomas along side Luke? Or a document that freely quotes from Mark and the Gospel of Peter?

I guess 2 Clement is a possibility, but given the author's usage of the Gospel of Thomas and possibly the Gospel of Peter, perhaps they are better examples.

Unfortunately we don't have a particularly great documentary record when it comes to non-canonical books.  That said, there is some clear evidence that at least some people in the early church accepted other "gospels" as Scripture.
Gospel of the Hebrews
Let's first turn to early church historian Eusebius.  He divides the existing books into three groups: widely recognized, disputed, and heretical. (Histories, 3.25) His "widely recognized" canon largely agrees with our own, but the "disputed" category is worth noting.  These are works that he didn't simply dismiss, but suggests that at least some in the church accepted them.  In this list, one in particular can rightly be called a gospel – the Gospel of the Hebrews.
According to the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, among those who knew and used the book are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Jeruslaem and Jerome.  And Klijn, "Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition," argues that Hegesippus accepted it, based on Eusebius's mention of him (Histories, 4.22).
The Gospel of Truth
Perhaps even clearer evidence for the existence of someone holding to more than four gospels in the earliest centuries is found in the writings of Irenaeus.  He attacks a prominent gnostic, Valentinus, over the matter:

But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing “the Gospel of Truth,” though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. (Against Heresies, 3.11)

Others
Eusebius specifically mentions several more "gospels" in his "heretical" category – the gospels of Peter, Matthias, and Thomas.  These and others like them don't have much explicit evidence for their acceptance by some in the church, though presumably Eusebius wouldn't have even mentioned them if no one accepted them.  And indeed, their relative prominence is used as evidence for acceptance: see, for example, What is the basis for saying that the Gospel of Thomas was accepted as scripture by early Christians?
Summary
So yes, there were people who associated themselves with Christianity – some typically considered "orthodox," some not – who seem to have accepted more than four gospels.  Two of the best documented "fifth gospels" are the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth.


Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) translational differences When reading on Biblical Prophecies, a big one is Genesis 3:15. The Douay-Rheims translation says

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

When it says "She  shall crush thy head..." is it refering to Mary, Jesus, or the both of them doing so? Growing up as a Methodist, the Bible has always said "He shall..." and not "She shall..". Why is it translated the way it is?

Some manuscripts have female pronouns and some have male. Some Catholic translations are based upon the ones with the female pronouns and thus see a foreshadowing of Mary (while still acknowledging Christ's roles).
Protestant translations generally favor reading the male pronoun there and focus on Christ's role.


What is the use of faith if God doesn't need/require anything from humans to save them? According to soteriologies (e.g. Calvinism) that believe God makes the choice to save people without expecting any decision from them first, what is the role of faith? If the decision making process is not mans' in the first place, why is it that God says people will only be saved by faith? What does their faith accomplish?

Put another way, why does he require obedience if there is no choice in the matter anyway?

There are a few facets to this, but the Calvinist perspective (though not nec. only the Calvinist perspective) would say that faith is the mechanism for salvation, because it gives God the glory; it doesn't give man room to boast (also, it doesn't help that man doesn't quite cut it with his works).

The apostle Paul addresses this in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:1-10 (ESV) [Emphasis mine]

  1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once
  walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of
  the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of
  disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our
  flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were
  by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But
  God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he
  loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive
  together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up
  with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ
  Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable
  riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by
  grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own
  doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one
  may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
  them.

Reformed Theology understands the order of salvation as beginning with regeneration (being "born again" -- see John 3) with a capacity for faith.   This faith is not something that is effected through the will of sinful man (who is "dead in [his]...sins"), but rather, it is a gift from God.


According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for? When people are sent to Hell, is it really for eternity, or does the amount of time spent in Hell depend on the Sins/Crimes committed on Earth?

I find it difficult to accept/believe that people who do not believe in a Book (the Bible) in a World where every man lies through their teeth just to sell you something or just to manipulate you because they have their own agenda - will go to Hell for eternity.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church statement on hell, we find the following:

  The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The 'In Brief' recap summarizes this as:

  Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

So yes, Catholic teaching is the traditional view of hell, that which is described as 'eternal conscious torment'.


What is the biblical basis for the centrality of preaching in worship? Among many Protestants, preaching is often seen as the most important part of the worship service:

  Proclamation, the preaching of the gospel, should be central to Christian worship. The sermon is the central dynamic in the worship experience. (Annual Preacher's Sourcebook)

Sermons thus are emphasized, but even beyond that, this often influences architecture.  The pastor's pulpit is brought to the center of the church, diminishing the focus on other aspects like the communion table.

What is the biblical basis for understanding preaching to be the most important part of the worship service? Note the word most: of course the proclamation of the gospel is important, but why is it seen to be more important than things like singing, praying, and the Lord's supper?

Question inspired by John Frame's Systematic Theology, chapter 27, p 645ff. and review question 11: Do you believe that preaching is "central" to Christian worship?

The prophet, as spokesperson for God, is the biblical basis for the centrality of preaching in worship. From the very beginning, and over and over since, God’s people are exhorted to listen.

Moses, probably through Aaron 1, said that God’s people should listen to God’s prophets.

  The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among
  you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. (Deuteronomy
  18:15)

Moses reminds God’s people that they asked for these spokespersons so they would not have to ever again fear and tremble at the direct word from God’s mouth.

  For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of
  the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our
  God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” (Deuteronomy
  18:16)

To which God commissions the prophet to proclaim God’s divine will.

  The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them
  a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put
  my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.
  (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)

And over the next several hundred years, God’s prophets continued to make declarations of  God’s divine will.

  “Go and tell this people.” (Isaiah 6:9)

  “Speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to
  listen.“(Ezekiel 2:7)

  “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.“ (Amos 7:15).

Jeremiah, toward a semblance of a ‘worship service’, makes a famous preaching engagement at the temple:

  Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message:
  “Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah who come through
  these gates to worship the Lord.” (Jeremiah 7:2)

Hear. Listen. Shema. 2

Into which comes the forerunner, the baptist John, recognized as prophet before he was born.

  “And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of
  Elijah.” (Luke 1:17)

The common people identified Jesus among John and the prophets.

  They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
  others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14)

Jesus Christ identified himself with the prophets.

  A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own
  home. (Matthew 13:57)

At Jesus’ transfiguration, again God’s intimidating direct word from the cloud, words that echo Jesus’ baptism.

  This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to
  him! (Matthew 17:5)

The early church took Christ to be God’s promised prophet of Deuteronomy 18 who would proclaim God's word in the same fashion as did Moses. But still, God’s people need other humans to help them listen and hear.

  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans
  10:14)

And finally, in what probably speaks most to the nebulous protestant preacher of the question, we have Paul’s slow burn of a command to Timothy:

  In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living
  and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you
  this charge: Preach the word. (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

In conclusion, prophet is preacher throughout scripture entire and is the basis for the centrality of preaching to anything at all resembling the worship of God.

1 From the moment of Moses’ original commission, Moses objected to God that he could not speak because he was “slow of speech and slow of tongue.” God provided Aaron, one of the first appointed to speak God’s word.

2 Shema Yisrael (or Sh'ma Yisrael; Hebrew: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל; "Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah, and is the title (sometimes shortened to simply Shema) of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services


Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ Would it be okay to say this:

  Jesus Christ is both God and Man, which means that He possesses both
  divine and human nature. Divine nature in Him is from God the Father
  and the human nature in Him is from the virgin Mary.

or what I said just now - I am mostly concerned about the very last sentence - would be a heresy according to the teaching in the main-stream Christianity?

If the last sentence in the quote is a heresy, please, specify, which branch of Christianity considers that as heresy.

I'd imagine that would be a heresy of the heresy of modalism or arianism or something, but that's not a very precise answer since a heresy of a heresy could be anything.

So, if you want to identify a heresy to the doctrine of the incarnation it would have to deny that Mary is the Holy Mother of God.  The heresy that denied that was Nestorianism. You can read St. Cyril give him the business in his 12 Anathemas.

The miracle of the Incarnation of Jesus took Mary's flesh and made Jesus, like God took part of Adam and made Eve, except in reverse; this is all very fitting and proper and a completion of the work of the OT, as it should be. Moreover, it is a mystery and a miracle that cannot be understood by reason alone, as it should be.


What is the Biblical basis for infant baptism? I've studied the Bible and am a fundamental independent Bible believing Baptist who believes what the scripture says about Baptism is clear.

It is an ordinance after salvation, i.e. believers baptism.
It is not part of salvation but a public profession of the inward change.
It is a picture of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection.

I refer Acts 8:35-38, Romans 6:3-4.

If infant Baptism were supported by scripture, where are the verses? How can that be reconciled with Acts 8:35-38, Romans 6:3-4? Seeing how an infant cannot place his/her faith in Christ as they don't understand their need for Christ...

Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you, and your children, and to all who are afar off...

A lot of our argument comes from the inference that Baptism is to Circumcision as the Lord's Supper is to Passover.

  Colossians 2:11-12 In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the
  flesh*, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him
  in baptism...  (emphasis mine)

Just as circumcision was the "putting off the body of the flesh", so baptism is being "buried with Christ", "into death" (Romans 6:4). They are signs of the same promise of the same salvation, one given to the physical race Jews, the other to the world-wide race of the elect.

Since the rite of circumcision was performed on male infants at eight days old, it makes sense to retain the age for Baptism.

  Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your
  household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your
  offspring.

Note that those who are baptized are those "in your household" or those brought into the household, so by carryover this would only apply to children of believers in Baptism.

Just like we (usually) retain the general "age of accountability" for Lord's Supper (just like Hebrew boys generally were supposed to wait until they were 12 to take Passover), so it makes sense to keep the age for Baptism.

While the following verses do not stand alone to support infant Baptism, they support it because they do not reverse the age set in the Old Testament for circumcision.

  Acts 16:14-15 ...The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household
  as well...

and

  Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

While you would be right to say "ah, but this is an argument from silence," I would reply that it certainly stresses "her household" and "his family" and considering the emphasis given in the New Testament to making sure that the Jews understood that the sacrifices/ceremonial law were now nullified, it would seem foolish of Luke not to carefully point out that the infants and children were omitted in the baptism. Instead, he includes the household and the family in the event because the parents (particularly the father) were representative of their family.

When God makes his covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, he says "offspring" five times before giving the command to circumcise all males, beginning at those only eight days old.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 suggests this has not been nullified for the New Testament and foreward; vs. 14 says

  For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the
  unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your
  children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

My pastor, in a letter to our congregation, said:

  Children of believers, like adult believers, are members of the
  visible church (church militant); and they, like we, are members of
  the invisible church (church triumphant) only by grace, through faith.

He has also called Baptism an engagement ring, placed upon the finger of the children of the covenant, and awaiting acceptance or rejection by that child as they grow.


Isn't Israel the firstborn Son of the Lord? We read in Exodus 4:22 that the people Israel are God's firstborn son:

  "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My
  son, My firstborn. (NASB)

So now, how can Jesus be the firstborn Son of God, let alone the only Son?

Several of the "prophecies" about Jesus mentioned in the Gospels refer to what is in fact a statement about Israel the past and present. For example Matthew describes the family of Jesus leaving Egypt and says:

  "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what
  had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I
  CALLED MY SON."" - Matthew 2:15 (NASB)

The Prophet referred to in Mathew 2:15 is Hosea, who says:

  When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
  2 The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept
  sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols." - Hosea 11:1–2
  (NASB)

The problem I have with such interpretations of Jesus' actions as fulfilments of propecy are that they were 1) about Israel 2) statements about the past rather than predictions and 3) the behavior being described is hardly matching the character and actions of Jesus in the gospels.

How do Christians reconcile the logic of Jesus being God's firstborn son or even the only son, with the actual words of God in the Old Testament about the nation of Israel? I don't mean metaphorically, but what is the actual reality? How are the later verses in the Gospels interpreted? On the one hand they seem as "additional" interpretations of the "original" verses about Israel, but read "in the light of the Gospel". But that can't negate the original meaning, can it? In reality, which is it?

Abraham's first-born son was Ishmael; but God referred to Isaac as Abraham's only son in Genesis 22:12:

Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me
your son, your only son.

Abraham sent his first-born son, Ishmael, away, making Isaac his only son - his only legitimate son, just as God sent his first-born son, Israel, away (after Israel sinned and sinned and sinned again), making the Lord Jesus Christ his one and only son - his one and only legitimate son, the Messiah.
Just as Isaac was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, the Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of his covenant - with Abraham and with all of humanity. And we know that Isaac is symbolic of Jesus as a sacrifice, with Abraham's righteous willingness to sacrifice his own son as God did for us.
There is also a recurring theme of the second-born claiming the birthright that the firstborn rejects, or displacing the firstborn - see Esau and Jacob, Perez and Zerah, and later Jacob putting Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. To some extent this applies to Cain and Abel - the firstborn sins and is exiled, and the second-born does what is right.


How do non-trinitarians reconcile Rev. 22 verses 6 and 16? Jehovah's Witnesses, as one non-trinitarian example, claim that Revelation 22:13 is a reference to Jehovah God and not Jesus:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

It is spoken to John by an angel and not directly by either Jehovah God or Jesus (Rev. 22:8)
Revelation 22:6 says that God sent this angel to John:

And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

The "he" in the above verse is the angel from verse 22:1 and 8:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb - v.1
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me - v.8

Later in verse 22:16 Jesus himself claims to be the one who has sent the angel:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

What exegetical proof is there that the Alpha and Omega statement of verse 13 is not applied to both Jehovah God and Jesus equally since both sent the angel who proclaimed it?  Or put another way, how can this be reconciled with a non-trinitarian belief?

Both God and Jesus can be understood to send the angel, because Jesus is at God's right-hand (Matthew 26:64) and is God's representative - God does things through Jesus.
The NT generally, and Revelation in this case, repeatedly and clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God. Jesus is the 'Son of God', Jesus says 'My God, my God'. Jesus says 'Your God and my God'. In Revelation, Jesus (= the Lamb) is repeatedly distinguished from God, such as Revelation 1:1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him", Revelation 1:6 "who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His [i.e., Jesus'] God and Father", and Revelation 3:12 which contains this distinction 4 times in one sentence. One of the verses you quote, 22:1, is another example of this ("the throne of God and of the Lamb" - two different things).
Therefore, when you have a pattern of clear statements distinguishing between the two, it is poor exegetical practice to take one, unclear instance and try to draw overarching consequences from it. Instead, the author of Revelation is repeatedly drawing a distinction between God and Jesus while simultaneously drawing a close relationship between them.
So, if we take Jesus to be saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and so on, then a non-trinitarian has two obvious options. First, to say that Jesus is speaking in the place of God (as his representative, much as the angel is speaking in the place of Jesus). Second, to say that all those descriptors can apply to either Jesus or God, depending on what is meant. They are all vague titles.
So whatever exactly is occurring in this passage and whatever exactly the descriptors mean and to whom they are supposed to be applied, what is clear from Revelation overall is that Jesus (= the Lamb) and God are two distinct things.


Do Catholic children near death recieve the Eucharist as Viaticum Canon law says that anointing of the sick is to be done to someone having attained the age of reason, same as reception of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance.

However, as "Food for the Journey", if a child is near death, do they usually still receive the Eucharist as Viaticum?

If you read the Catholic encyclopedia entry I linked to on viaticum it says that they are. But, I'm not sure if it's outdated because it seems to conflict with Canon Law.  As this answer states younger children receiving communion used to be normal, but not any more, is this the same for Viaticum or is it totally separate from the sacrament of anointing of the sick (other than the fact that they both usually take place before death).

I think your question is covered by Can. 913:

Can.  913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

While that does not explicitly say, "if and only if," I believe it is fairly clear.

As a side note: when it comes to questions like, "who should receive a sacrament?" the person who really decides is priest (or, occasionally the Eucharistic Minister) present. It could very well be that a 3½ year old or someone outside of the Catholic Church could receive when they are close to death (my son understood the Eucharist was special at 2½, but I doubt a priest would have let him receive...).


I am fasting for 40 days I am fasting for 40 days I was wondering if I can stop fasting every Sunday and eat normal food my mom said I can but I want to be sure

I assume this is for lent?

Wikipedia indicates your mother is correct. In part it says:

  In the Roman Rite Lent starts on Ash Wednesday and finishes on Holy Saturday. This comprises a period of 46 days. This includes 6 Sundays which are not considered part of Lent because Sundays are days of celebration for Catholics.

You should consult a priest or trusted member of your faith about how this type fast is done. You also  may be wise to inquire of your doctor about your specific situation and if this can be done without impacting your health.


Can annulments be granted after a marriage has received a Radical Sanation? Can a Annulment be granted after the marriage received a Sanatio in Radice (Radical Sanation)? If yes, what justification is needed/valid?

A marriage may be declared null (granted an "annulment," although Canon Law does not use that term) after a sanatio in radice for the same reasons that any marriage is declared null: either because of impediments or because of a defect in consent. (See my answer to Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?.)

However, the process would be, so to speak, doubly difficult, because the invalidity of the marriage would have to be established both at the time of the exchange of consent (that is, at the wedding) and at the time of its convalidation (in this case, by means of a radical sanation).

(There is, of course, reason to suspect that the marriage was invalid until the time of its convalidation: that is why a radical sanation was sought. The case of nullity would probably have to rest on some other factor that the radical sanation did not take into consideration.)

A little background for the benefit of readers

If a Catholic couple discovers that there could be something rendering their marriage invalid (some impediment or a defect in consent), the Church offers various ways to regularize their situation. (These are found in the Code of Canon Law, can. 1156–1165.) Such a regularization is needed, because if the marriage is, in fact, invalid, the couple does not benefit from the graces that come from the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The simplest way is what is called a simple convalidation: the couple simply exchange their vows in the usual way before an authorized witness (usually a priest or deacon). It is effectively a new, albeit simple, wedding ceremony.

In some cases, however, a simple convalidation is not necessary, because the Church can take advantage of the consent already exchanged. In that case, the proper procedure to use is the sanatio in radice, which is essentially a decree on the part of the competent authority (the local ordinary) that all impediments to the marriage have been removed. Once the sanatio is given, the consent originally exchanged is sufficient for the marriage to be valid.


What liturgical calendar does the Anglican Ordinariate follow? Is the liturgical calendar that the Anglican Ordinariates follow the same as the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) calendar, or the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form) calendar, or perhaps it is the same as the calendar used by protestant Anglo-Catholics? Or maybe it is something completely unique?

The Anglican Ordinariate follows the calendar of the Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo), but does have elements of the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine) calendar incorporated into it.

For the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, Wikipedia says this:

  The proper liturgical calendar of the ordinariate was approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 15 February 2012. In the main, it is identical with the current Roman Rite liturgical calendar of the dioceses of England and Wales, but it has retained some elements that form part of the Anglican patrimony. Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Although the Anglican Ordinaiates have Ember Days and Rogation Days, which are elements of the Extraordinary Form, these days have never been abrogated in liturgical reform of Blessed Paul VI and may be still used in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, if desired.


What is the relation of Jesus's and Jonah's boat stories? Studying about "sleep" in the Bible I came across some passages and found out that the story of Jonah and Jesus in boats are quite similar.

  And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he [Jesus] was asleep. (Matthew 8:24)

And

  But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken. [...]
  But Jonah [...] was fast asleep. (Jonah 1:4-5)

I wonder if:

Are there published commentaries that relates this two stories?
If so, what is the commentator insight on relating those two? (Specially devotional insights)

A answer quality will be measured by the quantity of commentaries with a contundent insight from the part of the commentator.

A contundent insight, for this question, is a relation between the two texts that goes beyond the obvious: "the passages are similar".

Published commentaries, with insights
The stories of Jonah and Jesus in boats are quite similar, so the question becomes one of whether the story of Jonah in some way prefigures that of Jesus or whether the story of Jesus calming the storm was substantially based on the story of Jonah.
Many commentaries that find prefigurement in the Book of Jonah really only focus on the three days Jonah spent in the belly of a whale as a prefigurement of the Resurrection, suggesting that these authors do not find the parallels with Jonah 1:4-5 to be very compelling. One such example is An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels (pages 156, 354) by Frederick James Murphy.
Hahn, Mitch and Walters (Gospel of Matthew: Ignatius Study Bible, page 38) describe Jesus as the new Jonah, not only because he calmed a storm but even more so because his three days in a whale prefigured Jesus' three days in the tomb.
Alonzo L. Gaskill (Miracles of the New Testament: A Guide to the Symbolic Messages) lists the parallels between the two miracles and finds them strong and obvious, but reaches no conclusion.
The first New Testament gospel to be written was Mark's Gospel, so  Timothy Keller (King's Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus) looks to Mark for an explanation. He says that Mark has deliberately laid out his account using language that is parallel, almost identical, to that in Jonah. Although Jesus is not tossed into the sea, as was Jonah, he says that Mark is showing that the stories are not actually different when you stand back a bit.
Robert M. Price says in The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems, page 80, that Jonah 1:4-6 forms the basis for Mark 4:35-41, with elaboration via Psalm 107:23-29. He cites Dennis R. MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pages 68, 174-175, as identifying a parallel between Mark 4:35-41 and Odyssey 10:1-69, with particular reference to Jesus' rebuke of the disciples (4:40) and the puzzling "there were also with him other little ships" (4:36).  In copying from Mark, the author of Matthew omitted the reference to the other boats accompanying them.


Where is the martyrology in my breviary? I'm trying to learn to use a physical breviary. So far it's been pretty smooth sailing, but today (Sunday Nov 12) has been a disaster. I try to compare what I'm praying from the breviary with what it tells me to pray on the Laudate app on my phone, just to confirm that I'm navigating the book correctly. Today to my horror all the psalms were completely different and many of the other prayers too. Apparently it's the Feast Day of St. Martin and this is reason enough to interrupt the weekly cycle of psalms.

Furthermore, while I was going through the pages I came to a direction which reads as follows:

  Next, in choir, the Martyrology is read; and it is appropriate to do this outside of choir also.

I am completely clueless as to where I am supposed to find this martyrology in my breviary. The Laudate app provides it in full, but I would like to know where to find it in my physical book.

I'm praying the traditional divine office (pre-Vatican 2 reforms) and the breviary I'm using is the one published by Baronius press. Would anyone happen to have any pointers as to which page I'm supposed to be looking at to find this elusive martyrology?

The contents page of the breviary looks roughly like this:

Ordinary - Constant part
Ordinary - Variable part
Psalter
Common of Saints
Office of the dead
The gradual psalms
The seven penitential psalms
Litany of the saints

Proper of the season
Homilies and collects for sundays
Proper of the saints

The Breviary and the Roman Martyrology are two separate books. In the Pre- Vatican II Divine Office the Martyrology was read at the conclusion of Prime. The reading of the Martyrology is added to the Office of Prime and is not an essential part of it. Thus the reading of the Roman Martyrology can be dispensed with.

The Feast of St. Martin for the universal Church is November 11 and not November 12. However if the "Laudate App" is originated from a diocese from which the Feast of St. Martin has been transferred to the 12th of November and is ranked as a major feast (solemnity) then all the Psalms would reflect this.

At worst, the App has made a typo in its' assessment of the Divine Office for this day.


What are the differences between cherubim and seraphim? I was reading a post regarding the appearance of angels: What does the Bible say about the appearance of angels?

And I am curious as to the general differences between cherubim and seraphim.
Do they have different appearances, roles, etc? Or are they essentially the same?
Perhaps different sects of faith have differing views.

Do Judaism and/or Christian denominations such as Catholicism note any specific differences between cherubim and seraphim?

Strictly Biblically speaking, the Seraphim are only described once in the Bible:

  In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
        the whole earth is full of his glory.”

  At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
  Isaiah 6:1-4

There really is not much about them. They have six wings and it seems that most of their purpose for existing is to sing praises to God in God's presence. The "doorposts and thresholds shook" at the sound of their voices. These are awesome creatures. No wonder Isaiah was terrified.

Cherubim on the other hand seem to be more simple, having only one set of wings. They are your typical angels and are described in a number of places in the Bible. They appear to look like people with wings. There's a good deal of information on them pretty much everywhere, so I'll neglect to expand on that. It seems their primary purpose for existence is to deliver messages from God to creation, and some suspect from creation to God as well. They also seem to have some multipurpose as soldiers. An example would be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Outside of the 66 book Protestant canon there is a lot more information. Tons more. Outside of Christianity there is even more. Much too much for a single answer on this site. FMS's answer hints on some of it.


What's the Evangelical take on the Natural Moral Law? Since it's not in the Bible, are Evangelicals taught to ignore or disapprove of the teachings of such folks as Aristotle and Plato?  Would they belive a redacted version of the Summa Theologica or City of God where all the Aristotelean and Neo Platonic stuff is gone and only the Divine Law stuff remains?

One of the founding ideas of Protestantism was "sola scriptura", meaning that we view the Bible as the only ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we refuse to read any other books. The existence of thousands of Baptist bookstores should be adequate proof that that's not true. What it means is that we do not view any book other than the Bible as having any authority beyond the weight of the writer can convince us of by the force of his arguments.

Frankly, I suspect most rank-and-file Protestants don't know who Aquinas, Augustine, etc are. (Well, does the average Catholic know who they are?) Among the more intellectual Protestants, of course we read and quote and discuss Greek and Scholastic philosophers and the Church Fathers. We just read them with the attitude that we will agree with some things they say and disagree with others. We don't need "redacted" versions -- we're grown-ups, we can handle the fact that we may not agree with everything we read. :-)


Do ghosts exist or not? What is the view of reformed churches on the subject of ghosts? Do they exist or do they not? If they exist, what are they: demons or spirits of dead people or both?

One of my “go to” sources for Reformed Protestant theology is Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) who preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, a large Independent Reformed Baptist church in London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Tabernacle   This link provides access to 3,653 of his sermons:  https://www.spurgeongems.org/spurgeon-sermons/
I searched on key words such as “ghosts”, “dead spirits” and “demons” but all I could find was a reference to Deuteronomy 18:11 which says that anyone who consults with the dead is detestable to the Lord.  From there I searched on the Witch of Endor because that is what King Saul did – he consulted with a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel.  This cost Saul his life “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14).  Another Bible reference about demons and false spirits warns against people who “will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1).
Here are a few partial quotes from sermons that mentioned Saul consulting the Witch of Endor in an attempt to seek guidance from the dead prophet Samuel:

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 457 - Religion – Reality (page 1 paragraph 2): Regarding ceremonial religion: You might as well go to the Witch of Endor for divine grace as to a priest; and if you rely upon words, the “Abracadabra” of a magician will as certainly raise you to heaven, or rather sink you to hell, as the performances of the best ordained minister under heaven! ...All ceremonial religion, no matter how sincere, if it consists in relying upon forms and observances, is a vain thing.  https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs457.pdf

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 439 – The Danger of Doubting (page 3, paragraph 2): Saul was seeking a miserable witch of Endor, to raise Samuel from the dead...  When the Witch of Endor brought up the spirit of Samuel, he said to Saul “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and become your enemy?” (1 Samuel 28:16) https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs439.pdf

Charles Spurgeon Sermon 2179 – God Fighting Sin (page 3, paragraph 1): Regarding preachers who leave God: If God will not help him he is in the same plight as Saul, the son of Kish. He will try music first, and if that does not render him aid, he will go to the witch of Endor, now called “modern theology,” and ask assistance there! God have mercy upon us, if we ever do that!  https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs2179.pdf

I concede that these quotes do not answer your question, so I looked elsewhere and have put together a brief overview of Protestant thought based on what the Bible says:

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness”: “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”  Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess.  Whether it is called a ghost, a ghoul, or a poltergeist, if there is genuine evil spiritual activity occurring, it is the work of demons. What about instances in which “ghosts” act in “positive” ways? What about psychics who claim to summon the deceased and gain true and useful information from them? Again, it is crucial to remember that the goal of demons is to deceive. If the result is that people trust in a psychic instead of God, a demon will be more than willing to reveal true information. Even good and true information, if from a source with evil motives, can be used to mislead, corrupt, and destroy.  https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

Some people hold the idea that unclean spirits (Greek ‘akathartos’) or demons are deceased humans who may or may not have been evil while alive. However, we know the unclean spirits mentioned in the Bible are not referring to the dead, for several reasons. One, humans are never called “spirits” when the word spirit is used as a stand-alone term, without a possessive. In Scripture, men are said to have a spirit/soul (saying “his spirit” in Proverbs 25:28 and 1 Corinthians 5:5), but men are not called “spirits.” Another reason is that, once a person dies, he immediately goes either to eternal life with the Lord or to eternal darkness in hell (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:6–8; Matthew 25:46). Human spirits, therefore, do not and cannot wander on earth in their spirit bodies. Any unclean spirit that wanders around, taking up residence in places or people or interacting with people in any way, is a fallen angel—a demon (Matthew 12:44). All unclean spirits mentioned in Scripture are demons, and all demons are definitely unclean, unholy, impure, evil spirits doomed to an eternity in hell (Matthew 25:41).  https://www.gotquestions.org/unclean-spirits.html

Looking into the history of belief in ghosts I found some interesting information on how ghosts are viewed by Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslins.  It’s quite revealing:

In Medieval Catholic Europe, ghosts were assumed to be the tormented souls of people suffering for their sins in purgatory. But during the Protestant Reformation, since most Protestants believed that souls went immediately to heaven or hell, paranormal activity was thought to be the work of angels, demons or other decidedly nonhuman supernatural beings.  For Hindus, ghosts are the souls of individuals who suffered a violent death or of people who were not accorded the appropriate and required death rituals. Buddhist ghosts are reincarnated individuals who may be sorting out bad karma.  Muslims don’t believe that dead people can return as ghosts, so if a Muslim thinks he’s encountered a ghost, it’s thought to be the work of Jinn – beings that contain a mix of spiritual and physical properties, whose intentions can be malevolent or benevolent depending upon the situation.  There are several other religions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, that also believe ghostly apparitions are demons in disguise rather than the souls of deceased people.  It appears people across eras, religions and cultures have always been curious about a spiritual world that exists behind the curtain of death.  https://theconversation.com/how-the-god-you-worship-influences-the-ghosts-you-see-84163

As a Swiss Reformed Protestant theologian, Ludwig Lavater rejected the idea of Purgatory (an intermediary place where souls of the newly dead that are destined for heaven go, until they are pure enough to ascend) as an outdated Catholic concept. This greatly complicated the idea of ‘ghosts’, often thought to be visitations by human souls that were not at rest, such as those who died unbaptized or in tragic or violent circumstances. Without Purgatory, ghosts could only be visitations from Heaven or Hell. Lavater felt they were more likely to have come from Hell, and this meant that many ghosts were demonic and their requests dangerous: they could be trying to lure humans into damnation, for example by persuading them to commit murder or suicide The Protestant rejection of Purgatory also made the subject of ghosts and their nature controversial and political as it became part of sectarian religious debate.  https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/of-ghosts-and-spirits-walking-by-night-by-ludwig-lavater-1572

Finally, this Wikipedia article looks into biblical references to mediums, summoning the dead and ghosts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost#Judaism_and_Christianity
The difficulty in answering this question is in trying to find anything published by Reformed Protestants on the subject of "ghosts".  They have plenty to say about the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, but any other sort of "spirit" or "ghost" does not come from God.


In the history of the Catholic Church, has the Sunday obligation to go to Mass ever been dispensed of due to some serious communicable disease? Has the Sunday obligation to go to Mass ever been dispensed of due to some serious communcable disease?

I am interested in knowing if Rome (the pope) ever permitted the faithful to refrain from going to Sunday Mass due to some communicable disease or other historical serious circumstances due to disease?

I am aware that the sick and infirm are dispensed of this holy obligation, but I would like to know if this ever extended to an entire region or area? I will deliberately exclude Catholic soldiers during times of wars.

A few years ago, in our diocese, the bishop suppressed the sign of peace for certain length of time due to the avian flue epidemic. But the sign of peace is already optional during the celebration of the Mass.

The bishops of Mexico suspended public worship in all of Mexico beginning July 31, 1926, during the Cristero war.

Also, commenting on 1917 Code's Canon 1245 §2 (cf. 1983 can. 1245), canonist Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B., cites Benedict XIV's Constitution Libentissime, which permitted dispensation from Lenten fasting due to a diocese-wide influenza outbreak. Dispensation from Sunday obligation could be done for similar reasons.


Burying a fish as a Christmas tradition? To me this almost sounds like a joke, and I want to know if this is really a tradition...

I was at a dinner tonight with some vendors, one of whom was from New England.  He was telling the group about a catholic tradition of burying a dead fish in the back yard on Christmas.  He wasn't Catholic himself, and couldn't elaborate, but swore his friend's family did this as a tradition, and that it was a "Catholic thing".

Google is coming up blank, so I'm asking our Catholicism experts here:  Is this truly a tradition, and if so, what can you tell me about it? Origins, meanings, etc.

Rakfisk is a traditional Norwegian dish, which is made by burying trout or char in the ground for several months, and then eaten without cooking. It is traditionally eaten around Christmas, but it is not a specifically Christian tradition (any more than turkey or mince pies). Since it is eaten at Christmas, the burying would have to have happened several months before, unless the fish is buried for an entire year. Norway is not a particularly Catholic country, so it is unlikely to have been a Catholic tradition.


How does Jesus describe God in the Gospels How did Jesus explain the nature of God in the NT narratives ? Please cite only the relevant verses where Jesus himself describes the nature of God.

I wanted to again clarify , that I am interested in Jesus's sayings  firsthand and not someone else interpreting it what he said.

I attempted to list a few verses below where the Father character is described in detail.

Joh 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Greater than all.

Joh 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Loving, Saving and Wrathful.

Luk 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luk 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Luk 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Luk 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
Luk 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Good and Generous.

Joh 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20  For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23  That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Every act of kindness, compassion, healing and deliverance which is attributed to Jesus can also be attributed to the Father. Every sermon and judgment made by Christ can likewise be attributed to the Father.


What are the different "Marks of the Church" of Christian denominations? In the Catholic Church, the "Marks of the Church" are what's in the Nicene creed. That she is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I've seen that the Westminster Catechism has different marks spelled out.

What does every Major branch of Christianity whose has "Marks of the Church" claim those marks to be?

This is a crestomathy-request, so every answerer who attempts to answer this question should include, within reason, every mark of every church.

Every mark of every church is potentially a tall order. I'll count the major branches as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed.

Lutherans say that "The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered" (Augsburg Confession, Article VII).

Roman Catholics say that "'This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.' These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 811).

Reformed say that "The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults" (Belgic Confession, Article 29).

The Eastern Orthodox also use the Nicene formula "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." I haven't fully explored the difference between EO and RC usage of the word "catholic."

Anglicans have historically said that "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same" (Articles of Religion, XIX).


If God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day what had been lighting the earth for three days? Genesis 1:3-5 ERV

  Then God said, “Let there be light!” And light began to shine.  He saw the light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God named the light “day,” and he named the darkness “night.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19 ERV

  Then God said, “Let there be lights in the sky. These lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when special meetings begin and to show the days and years. They will be in the sky to shine light on the earth.” And it happened.  So God made the two large lights. He made the larger light to rule during the day and the smaller light to rule during the night. He also made the stars. God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth. He put them in the sky to rule over the day and over the night. They separated the light from the darkness. And God saw that this was good.  There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the fourth day.

If the sun and the moon weren't created until the fourth day what was that which had been lighting the earth for three days?

From an old Earth creationist perspective, the key lies in Genesis 1:1-2, which reads in part (NASB) "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void..." Did God create the earth formless and void? 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that "God is not the author of confusion", so one would assume that God did not create the earth formless and void. The Hebrew word translated as "was" in verse 2 can also be translated as "became". So it appears that at some point after "God created the heavens and the earth" the "earth became formless and void". This can be accounted for by Satan's rebellion, which had to happen sometime before he tempted Eve in the garden.


In heaven, will we desire to receive more intimacy, affection, and care from all others compared to our earthy life (catholic)? In heaven, will we desire to receive more intimacy, affection, and care from all others  than what we experience in this life on earth (please answer according to Catholic teaching)?

There are two views on this.
The first view tells that we will desire to receive less intimacy, affection, and care from others compared to what we experience in this life on earth, because in heaven, God will be our only focus (so we won't care much about our relationships with all others in heaven, or going even further, in heaven, there will be no such desire in us - the desire to be loved by other members of heaven - because we are already perfectly satisfied in God).

The second view (my view), however, suggests that we will desire to receive more intimacy, affection, and care from all others than what we experience in our earthy life. And here is the logic to this view: In heaven, we will be in the perfect and complete union with God, and we will love God perfectly. Also, the Catholic church's teaching on the communion of saints emphasize that it is God's will that we all be in a perfect and complete union in heaven not only with God himself, but also with all others in heaven  - And because loving God requires desiring precisely what God desires for us, in heaven, we will desire a perfect and complete union with all others in heaven; and if we are to desire this, surely we will desire to receive more intimacy, affection, and care from all others, more than what we want from others in our earthy life.

I am not sure which view is correct. Can anyone help me with this?

The Divine Comedy relates some idea of movement of the will in heaven, in other words, those beatified constantly are filled by God and yet desire him more and more. This is reflected in Dante's "visual" experience: constant movement, swirling motion, etc., especially canto XXXIII. Contrast this with the scholastic idea of beatitude, which on the whole seems to me much more static and aligns closely with your first view. You can see Caroline Walker Bynum's work "Resurrection of the Body" for a brief overview of Dante's dynamic vision of the Beatific Vision vs the Scholastics. Neither of these viewpoints are necessarily dogmatic, but both sources have been proven orthodox so I think you could in good conscience hope for whichever one you find more edifying so long as the basic belief in the fulfillment of desire, vision of God, etc is maintained. Personally, I find Dante's conception much more beautiful and mystifying. This is completely off the top of my head after a long day, so please correct any inaccuracies there may be.
I'll go ahead and quote Dante at length here: Canto XXXIII ~line 90 following St Bernard's prayer to Our Lady, Dante is overwhelmed by the vision of light:

     > *Substance and accidents and their relations
      I saw as though they fused in such a way
      That what I say is but a gleam of light.

      The universal pattern of this knot
      I believe I saw, because in telling this,
      I feel my gladness growing ever larger.

      One moment made more slip my memory than
      Twenty-five centuries reft from the adventure
      That awed Neptune with the shadow of the Argo.

      So my mind, held in absolute suspense,
      Was staring fixed, intent, and motionless,
      And by its staring grew the more inflamed.*


Moses - did he kill thousands? Someone said that Moses was a mass murderer having killed thousands of of his own people out of anger and frustration.  Where in the Bible does it state this, if anywhere?

It doesn't and he didn't.

It does say he killed A man. And murder is murder whether you kill one or a thousand,  so he was a murderer.

  Exodus 2:12 (ESV)
  12  He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

In my experience, the accusation of 'mass-murder' usually stems from a gross misinterpretation of the Exodus story caused by the presupposition that God was not involved.

If you rule out supernatural intervention, the plague episodes and the Red Sea drownings become folk tales. While nobody expects all the details of such legends to be real, they do assume such tales were based of a 'kernel of truth', and in this case that must have been a temperamental, vindictive and cruel Moses who terrorized the Egyptians in order to achieve his own political ends. It's amazing how twisted a story Exodus becomes if you do not assign God the role he claims for himself in the narrative.


What are the various beliefs about the fate of honest atheists? Some atheists (or any explicit denier of Christian truth) claim that their disbelief in Christianity is an honest one, viz. if they had put their faith in Christ they would be lying to themselves and to others. Therefore, they believe they are being more honest to disbelieve.

If an honest disbelieving soul such as this actually exists, what do the various Christian traditions teach about the fate of such a soul? I'm particularly interested in traditions such as:

Roman Catholicism
Reformed
Evangelical
Orthodox
And variations within these traditions

No need to be comprehensive. If you have relevant information about one or two of these traditions please share.

According to Christian perspectives you mentioned, a person who claims that Jesus Christ was not in any way divine, and that his death was not spiritually meaningful in any way cannot enter into the Body of Christ, Community of Saints, or the Kingdom of God.

Consider the following soteriological perspectives,

Salvation by faith: regardless of other principles or teaching, most self proclaimed adherents to mainstream Christian religions require that a person acknowledges that they believe in the resurrection of Christ and some of its consequences.

Repentance from Sin: While most Christian groups acknowledge that salvation is by faith alone (Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic), some acknowledge that a person should have a life after conversion in which their behavior is altogether different than that of their pre-conversion life.

Decisionalism: Yet other Christian groups, and some of those also mentioned, teach that a person must make a conscious decision to follow Jesus, and that each should be able to point to a moment of realization of the truth and salvation.

Lordship: Others yet claim that Salvation comes when people turn their lives over to Christ, as their Lord and Master.

Sanctification: If a person obtains justification from sin by their sanctification, a person must become holy by living a biblically driven life, their sins being forgiven because of their dedication to godliness.

If an atheist does not fall into any of these categories, most of the Christian groups that operate according to any one of these doctrines, including the Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic, or Orthodox churches, as well as others like Mormonism, would not include such a person among those who, according to many of these groups, will continue to live eternally in communion with God.


Why did the Catholic Church rule out meat? I read that back in the early days of the Catholic Church that they were heavily invested in the "fishing market." With the popularity of beef on the rise and the loss of revenue to the Catholic Church, they demanded that meat be given up for specific holidays thus increasing the consumption of fish which brought back their revenue stream. Any truth to this?

The ancient fasting practices ruled out not only meat, but  fish and many other foods as well, depending on the occasion.  In some cases, they ruled out any food whatsoever.
The Didache, a 1st century Christian document, shows that the earliest Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays, though it does not describe exactly what practices were followed.  It probably meant complete abstention from food.
The most detailed history of Christian fasting in antiquity comes, I think, from the Church historian Socrates of Constantinople (c 380-439).  He is the first to describe, I think, the practice of abstaining from specific foods during Christian fasts.  Describing the various Lenten fasts practiced throughout the Church (e.g. three weeks in Rome, six weeks in Greece and Alexandria), he describes the various practices:

One can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses, these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread only; still others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth hour, afterwards take any sort of food without distinction.  And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might
perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts.  (Ecclesiastical History, V.XXII).

Your question regarded "in the early days of the Catholic Church".  I don't know if you had the pre-Schism period in mind or not, but the above provides a synopsis up to the 5th century.  In any case, it doesn't seem that the fasting practices within the Church arose because of any heavy investment by the Roman Church.  The western Roman Empire was in the process of collapsing during the latter times described by Socrates.
The See of Rome would not acquire any sort of political or commercial power until after the ascent of Charlemagne in the 9th century.  Even then, I think it is ingenuous to propose that Roman Christians fasted due to commercial interests of their See.  Fasting in the east and the west was rooted in Apostolic tradition, nothing else.

Excursus on 1 Timothy 4:3
1 Timothy 4:1ff is often held up as a sort of condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church (in fact, it would also serve to condemn the Eastern Orthodox Church as well, but those doing the condemning usually have their hands full enough just attacking the Catholic Church and/or are only vaguely familiar with the Orthodox Church).  The passage is translated in the King James Bible (i.e. the same King James Bible that originally included the Deuterocanon) as:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is curious that this particular passage regarding commanding to abstain from meats is taken quite literally, yet a passage from the preceding chapter that declares the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth tends to go unnoticed (1 Timothy 3:15).
There are two points with regard to 1 Timothy 4:3 that are worth noting.

First, the Greek phrase is ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων in the Textus Receptus, the Nestle-Aland Critical Text, and the Patriarchal Text of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The word βρῶμα actually means any and all solid food, not simply animal flesh.  With the sole exception of Matthew 14:15 (victuals), βρῶμα is translated as "meat" in the 1611 King James Bible, as in the earlier Tyndale (1536) and Geneva (1557-1560) Bibles, which is consistent with the usage of the term dating back to Old English.  It is the first definition of the word given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed.):

I 1 Food; nourishment for people or animals; esp. solid food, as opp. to drink.  Now arch. & dial. OE

Many of those who follow the King James Bible allow themselves to be misled by imposing modern meanings on words that meant something different at the time the translation was completed.  Meat is a relatively benign example (atonement is more insipid). Most, but still not all, understand that "meat" meant food in the King James Bible, as is reflected in succeeding Protestant translations:

NKJV

... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods ...

ESV

... who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods ...

NIV

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods ...

The second point, having now correctly interpreted what the Greek means, is that Paul's objection in 1 Timothy 4:3 is not that people abstain from food (ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων), but they do so for the wrong reason: namely that they reject food because they see it as evil and not as something good that is provided by God - a prevailing gnostic tendency of the time.  Irenaeus writes on this in Against Heresies I.XXIV and elsewhere.
The proper understanding of 1 Timothy 4:1ff is explained by the Romanian Orthodox Elder Cleopas in The Truth of Our Faith (pp. 146-147 - a very good book; I highly recommend it):

Some are convinced that we should eat of all foods, at all times, without discretion.  They say that we should cast off all the restrictions of the fast and make wide the road to the belly.  However, we have a teaching from our Saviour Christ that the demons are not cast out except by prayer and fasting (Mat 17:21).  His holy disciples and Apostles ministered to the Lord with fasting, as it is written: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted ... and again, And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away (Acts 13:1-4).  The great Apostle Paul did not set aside the work of fasting even in the midst of his trials: in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in sleeplessness, in fasting ... (2 Cor 6:5).
Thus, whom should Christians obey? Our Saviour Christ and His holy Apostles or he who subverts and distorts the meaning of Scripture?  (2 Pet 3:16-17).  The passage, which came to you in your thoughts [1 Tim 4:3-8], does not assert the abolition of fasting.  From a similar misreading of this passage sprang the delusion of the ancient heretics, the so-called Gnostics.  The Gnostics forbade marriage and the eating of meat.  These prohibitions they kept not in short stretches of time, as we do during the periods of the fast, but they perpetually forbade marriage, so as not to propagate "matter", while meat they considered to be unclean.


Why is it that God the Father is alone capitalised in the third person? Usually Christians write He, His and Himself with a capital H when referring to God the Father. I'm not aware of this practice for either Jesus or The Holy Spirit.

Why the distinction?

Depends on the style guide, but it is a convention to capitalize names of God.

The Chicago Manual of Style does not require it, but does acknowledge it.

If a person doesn't capitalize He in regards to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it is probably just an unintentional slip.

Alternatively:

They could be Nestorian, and deny the divinity of Christ.
They might be Unitarian or Agnostic, and just not be sure.
Their Shift key might be possessed.
They might be anti-German, and thus hate capitalization on principle.

Or

They might have just screwed up.

"Never to attribute to malice where simple incompetence will suffice."


What did Paul mean by 'work out your salvation'? Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

Does this mean although a person has accepted Jesus as Lord, they still need to work out their salvation and they might loose it? From the scripture below I took it that salvation is a gift and one does not need to work it out?

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- (Ephesians 2:28)

Can you please explain what Philippians 2:12 means?

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13, NIV)

The idea of working out our salvation means that it is something we already own but must cooperate with the Holy Spirit if we are to enjoy its full benefits. If we did not already 'have' salvation residing in us, then we would not be able to work it outwards from that place.  The fact is when one enters the 'kingdom of God' it is heaven entering into them. This new life, generated by the Spirit, is called the inner man and the old sinful life inherited from Adam is called the outer.   Now having entered into heaven and heaven into us, we are already considered to be in heaven. To work to enter into heaven is silly because a believer is already in heaven and a full citizen of it:

  And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:6-10, NIV)

As God is in us, and His presence is heaven, we must be fearful as we approach Him in ourselves.  Not only because he is so great and powerful do we revere him, but because his grace and love has overshadowed us in our sin that we must respect how awesome this salvation is.  The carnal believer will see the word 'work' and quickly loose sight of grace because they have little fear of God's salvation.  Paul counteracts this natural wicked inclination by reminding us that both our holy desire and the strength to carry is out into obedience is properly Gd's work in us and not our own.

We must be willing cooperators under the influence of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit will not possess us against our wills like a demon, but will fill us with power and desire like wind on a sail. We must just gently swing the sail of our souls into His wind and be blown about, striving under his might with great respect to the magnificence of his gracious power. This will require on our part great sweat and toil for the flesh, Devil and entire world will oppose all of God's works. Any other attitude would be ungrateful, irreverent and lacking in faith.


Why are Adam and Eve considered married? It seems fairly common for Christians to refer to Adam and Eve has being husband and wife. In particular, when (in my experience, evangelical) Christians are discussing questions of sex and marriage, using Adam and Eve as the pattern for creation, they treat the relationship between Adam and Eve as identical to that of our modern understanding of marriage.

One argument against this is that, from what I am aware, Genesis doesn't refer to them using words like "husband", "wife", or "marriage". In the UK, it's becoming increasingly common for couples to live together and start families without actually be married, and a sceptical person may attempt to attribute a similar arrangement to Adam and Eve.

What is the biblical basis for believing Adam and Eve were actually married?

I'm largely interested in answer from an Evangelical perspective, but would accept answer from any denomination in which this is a common belief

Genesis 2:24–25 (ESV): Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Genesis pretty clearly views them as husband and wife, even giving their union as foundational to all other marriages.


Why does God resort to genocide and destruction? According to this answer, God does not want to destroy sinners. And yet, there are several accounts in the Bible of God doing just that. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example, another one is the flood or the numerous atrocities against the Egyptians in Exodus, just to mention a few.

Now, with God being omnipotent, and thus with presumably an infinite number of ways of dealing with these situations, why does he resort to the most cruel and barbaric methods like genocide and murder? It doesn't seem like something a god who loves everyone would do, especially one with the power to resolve these situations in more peaceful ways.

Remember that God is completely loving, but that he is also completely just.
A truly just God who already decreed that the punishment for sin is death is morally obligated to follow through on that punishment.

As an example, remember in Daniel 6 that Daniel broke the law about praying to any 'god' other than Darius. Despite the fact that Darius liked Daniel, when Daniel [disobeyed], Darius was obligated to throw Daniel into the lions den.

To do any less is to turn God into a liar (something which he by definition is not). He is tautologically constrained by goodness, justice, and omnipotence to act.
Indeed, the real question isn't "Why did God punish these towns (Sodom, the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the inhabitants of Canaan, the world right before the flood)?"  but rather, "Why doesn't he wipe out more civilizations?"
Is God merciful ?
The answer to that is his mercy, as evidenced by Jonah.
Jonah, as you will remember, was sent to Ninevah by God to demand they repent. Jonah did his duty, however grudgingly, simply telling telling them "Thirty days and Ninevah shall be destroyed." When Ninevah heard this, however, it repented.  As a result, God changed his mind and decided to wipe them out.
That's when Jonah gets upset.  Here's what he says in Jonah 4:2:

He prayed to the LORD, O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

In response, God gives Jonah a living parable:

Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, It would be better for me to die than to live.
But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine? I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?

Why does justice demand death ?
Finally, it is reasonable to ask, why should a just God demand death for sin. After all, he is the one who pronounced originally that "in the day you shall eat thereof, you shall surely die."  (Here, I'm quoting Gen 2:17. Yes, Romans 6:23 is where I can unequivocally state the wages of sin is death, but I'm trying to stay in chronological order here!)
Here I want to delve into a bit of (hopefully informed) speculation.  The Jews understood that one could not look upon God and live.  (That's why (a) Jacob was amazed that he wrestled with God and lived, and (b) Moses, who asked to see God's face was told that he could not see it and live, but God did deign to show him his back.)
I don't think it is an unreasonable jump to suggest that when sinful man looks upon a completely holy God, he becomes so aware of his own inferiority that he cannot live with that knowledge.  (Its like that feeling of coming back to work after a wonderful Christmas vacation. The shock is killer!)
To look, unfettered upon the face of God, would be to literally die of shame.
Indeed, Dante says that the gates of hell are locked from the inside - Its not that God cannot abide man in heaven, but that sinful man cannot abide God.


How do Reformed Churches justify applying the 4th commandment to the Lord's Day? It is understood why Sunday is the Christian celebration every week, but it is not clear how the classically reformed justify applying the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath, which was given to Israel with its own stipulations, to the Lord's Day. It would seem on its face that the Sabbath observance would be simply spiritualized as entering into the eternal rest, rather than moved to Sunday and being accompanied with the traditional worship service.

This a tricky yet very interesting question and I would vote +2 if I could.

Basically from what I understand, although not perceived as a strict law, in the same way that the Sabbath was instituted under the law of Moses, the argument was this:

A day of rest was made by God for man before Adam sinned (before the Mosaic Law) by calling the 7th day holy in creation.
That day was a pledge of the eternal rest promised to man, if he were to obtain righteousness and also a pattern to follow for his own benefit to rest and enjoy his own labours once a week.
The Mosaic institution and law further stressed the need to rest, or enter into God's rest, but now as a law of condemnation only spoke to the lack of rest and the real need to enter into a new rest by the Messiah, where God would rest in a new creation and men could enter into a real eternal rest by the works of Christ.
When the law ended by the death of Christ, a new day of rest had to be instituted because a day of rest was still needed.
To use the same day of rest after Christ would be misleading on two accounts; First, as the Law of Moses (ceremonial, moral/punitive, judicial - entire law) was removed in the death of Christ, the day must change to make it clear just as the curtains of the temple were torn to make it clear. Second, as Christ 'rested from his works' on the first day (Sunday) by his resurrection, having finished making a new creation, it was logically the day to chose by the Apostles.
Technically the day was not replacing the Sabbath as strict 'command under the Law' but replacing the original day of rest under the order of nature before the law, so was in harmony to grace. This may explain why although followed naturally we find no strict rules in the New Testament reading it.
In some sense although society needs a 'day' to organise itself under this rest, the new day is not necessarily so strictly 'legal' as we must remember it's purpose is for the benefit of man and a literal pledge of his eternal rest in Christ.

The best and most elaborate lengthly and reasonable explanation that I have seen made from a reformist view is by John Owen in "EXERCITATIONS CONCERNING THE NAME, ORIGINAL, NATURE, USE, AND CONTINUANCE OF A DAY OF SACRED REST: WHEREIN THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THE MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, WITH THE CHANGE
OF THE SEVENTH DAY, ARE INQUIRED INTO; TOGETHER WITH AN ASSERTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S DAY, AND PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR ITS DUE OBSERVATION BY JOHN OWEN:" (haha those old long titles hey?)

This quote is where Sunday is pinpointed as the day to fulfil the moral natural intent of the 4th command according to a traditional reformed view:

  First, on this day he rested from his works, in and by his resurrection; for then had he laid the foundation of the new heavens and new earth, and finished the works of the new creation, “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” On this day he rested from his works, and was refreshed, as God did and was from his. For although he “worketh hitherto,” in the communication of his Spirit and graces, as the Father continued to do in his works of providence, after the finishing of the works of the old creation, though these works belonged thereunto, yet he ceased absolutely from that kind of work whereby he laid the foundation of the new creation. Henceforth he dieth no more. And on this day was he refreshed in the view of his work; for he saw that it was exceeding good. Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, was a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest which he would have observed under the administration of that original law and covenant, so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established.
  And the church of Christ could not pass one week under the new testament, or in a gospel state of worship, without this indication; for the Judaical Sabbath, as sure as it was so, and as sure as it was annexed unto the Mosaical administration of the covenant, was so far abolished as not really to oblige the disciples of Christ in conscience unto the observation of it, whatever any of them might for a season apprehend. And if a new day was not now determined, there was no day or season appointed for the observance of a holy rest unto the Lord, nor any pledge given us of our entering into the rest of Christ. And those who say that it is required that some time be set apart unto the ends of a sabbatical rest, but that there is no divine indication of that time, when nor what it is or shall be, if we consider what are the ends of such a rest, as before declared, must allow us to expect firmer proofs of their uncouth assertion than any as yet we have met withal.
  Accordingly, this indication of the gospel day of rest and worship was embraced by the apostles, who were to be as the chief cornerstones, the foundation of the Christian church; for immediately hereon they assembled themselves on that day, and were confirmed in their obedience by the grace of our Lord, in meeting with them thereon, John 20:19, 26. And it seems that on this day only he appeared unto them when they were assembled together, although occasionally he showed himself to sundry of them at other seasons. Hence he left Thomas under his doubts a whole week before he gave him his gracious conviction, that he might do it in the assembly of his disciples on the first day of the week; from which time forward this day was never without its solemn assemblies, as shall further be cleared afterwards. (Owen, J. (1862). An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (Vol. 19, pp. 409–410). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.)