Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 according to those who reject the deity of Christ Zechariah 14:1-5 (DRB)  Behold the days of the Lord shall come, and thy spoils shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 And I will gather all nations to Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken, and the houses shall be rifled, and the women shall be defiled: and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the rest of the people shall not be taken away out of the city. 3 Then the Lord shall go forth, and shall fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is over against Jerusalem toward the east: and the mount of Olives shall be divided in the midst thereof to the east, and to the west with a very great opening, and half of the mountain shall be separated to the north, and half thereof to the south. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of those mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall be joined even to the next, and you shall flee as you fled from the face of the earthquake in the days of Ozias king of Juda: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with him.

  Acts 1:1-12 (DRB)  The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach, 2 Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up. 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

  4 And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth. 5 For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. 6 They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.

  9 And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments. 11 Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven.

  12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

Question

According to those who reject the deity of Christ (that He is "the LORD"), are these two passages speaking of two separate Lords?

(EDIT: Since it doesn't seem to be clear: both mention a Lord returning to, or landing upon at least, the mount of Olives, probably an apocalyptic or end times event; that's the perceived connection. If Jesus is Yahweh, both refer to the same Lord. If not—well, that's the whole question.)

Yes, from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, these scriptures are talking about two different lords. The one in Zechariah is Jehovah God. The one in Acts is Jesus Christ, God's Son.

The prophecy in Zechariah 14 doesn't actually use the word "Lord" anywhere. The translators of the DRB have substituted the word "Lord" in place of God's name, which is usually pronounced "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in English. The New World Translation uses the name Jehovah throughout all of Zechariah 14.

Also, the prophecy at Zechariah 14 wasn't fulfilled by Jesus' ascension from the Mount of Olives or by Jesus' coming as King, but rather the prophecy was figurative of God establishing His Kingdom. - Stay in Jehovah's Valley of Protection, w13 2/15


Does Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan (as "king of Tyre")? Ezekiel 28 speaks of the king of Tyre. I've heard it both taught and refuted that this refers to Satan. I also just recently saw an answer making this assumption.

Does the passage refer to Satan?

It's actually both. Bear with me; I'll explain.

In the first half of Ezekiel 28:1-19, Ezekiel seems to be referring to a human man.

  Ezekiel 28:1-10 (ESV)

   1The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD:

      "Because your heart is proud,
     and you have said, 'I am a god,
  I sit in the seat of the gods,
     in the heart of the seas,'
  yet you are but a man, and no god,
      though you make your heart like the heart of a god—
   3 you are indeed wiser than Daniel;
     no secret is hidden from you;
   4by your wisdom and your understanding
      you have made wealth for yourself,
  and have gathered gold and silver
     into your treasuries;
   5by your great wisdom in your trade
     you have increased your wealth,
     and your heart has become proud in your wealth—
   6therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you make your heart
     like the heart of a god,
   7therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,
     the most ruthless of the nations;
  and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom
     and defile your splendor.
   8 They shall thrust you down into the pit,
      and you shall die the death of the slain
     in the heart of the seas.
   9 Will you still say, 'I am a god,'
     in the presence of those who kill you,
  though you are but a man, and no god,
     in the hands of those who slay you?
   10 You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
     by the hand of foreigners;
      for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD."

[Emphasis mine.]

I doubt that Satan (Lucifer) would be called a man or would he be able to die at the hands of humans.

But...the second half seems to refer to a spiritual being.

  Ezekiel 28:11-19 (ESV)

   11Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

     "You were the signet of perfection,
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
   13You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
   sardius, topaz, and diamond,
     beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
     and crafted in gold were your settings
     and your engravings.
  On the day that you were created
     they were prepared.
   14You were an anointed guardian cherub.
     I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
     in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
   15You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
     till unrighteousness was found in you.
   16In the abundance of your trade
     you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
     and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
     from the midst of the stones of fire.
   17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
     you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
     I exposed you before kings,
     to feast their eyes on you.
   18By the multitude of your iniquities,
     in the unrighteousness of your trade
     you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
     it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
   19All who know you among the peoples
     are appalled at you;
   you have come to a dreadful end
     and shall be no more forever."

[Emphasis mine.]

The third line of verse 16 in particular is similar to a verse in Revelation:

  Revelation 12:9 (ESV)

  9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[Emphasis mine.]

So, we have here two passages referring to the king of Tyre that seem to be contradictory as to whether this king is a man or Satan. I'll bet that this is similar to when Jesus rebukes Peter:

  Matthew 16:23 (ESV)

  23But he turned and said to Peter,  "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

  Mark 8:33 (ESV)

  33But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said,  "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

Obviously, Peter is not Lucifer, but he certainly could have been greatly influenced by Satan. Similarly, the king of Tyre may have been a man AND been possessed or greatly influenced by Satan. Thus, the "king of Tyre" just might be both a regular human king and Satan.


Are there any biblical incidents of people condemned for consensual premarital sex? I'm reading what is perhaps the funnest and most authentic Christian memoir ever: Angry Conversations with God: A Snarky but Authentic Spiritual Memoir

She writes about sex, saying at one point:

  But according to American evangelical churchianity, I’d committed a sin worse than murder or genocide or trying to set myself up as a deity. I’d had sex!

She learned this in her church:

  Instead he produced two large pieces of cardboard that had been glued together. “Sexual intercourse is made for the covenant of marriage. It is a binding act that unites two into one flesh. But if you engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage—” Pastor Norman yanked the two pieces apart. They shredded into chunks, one side clinging to the other, destroying the cardboard completely. “This is what happens if you have sex outside of marriage.” Well, okay then. Not doing that. He began reciting from his notes. “Sexual intercourse…” His Fargo accent turned the words into a sourball: “SECK-shull INN-turr-course.

The question is, did her pastor get it right?

This question is related to:

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?
What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?

But, I have a more focused question.  Biblically, is there an example of a person or a clear doctrine wherein what most Americans / people in the West would consider premarital sex is specifically condemned?

Specifically excluded for this question are:

adultery between two people where at least one is married (that seems to be the property crime in Exodus) and
prostitution (which seems to be the focus of 1 Corinthians 6).
Sexual worship, wherein the sex in question is less about "casual intercourse" than in performing some sort of ritual worship

Casual Sex, I would argue, for most modern Westerners is usually a physical act of lust that may occur between unmarried people.  I'm just trying to get a handle on that, separated from the case that Bibilically prohibited sex is a contractual and fealty-based matter rather than just  two horny teenagers indulging their fleshy desires.

While I am open to an exegesis that would contradict these assumptions, I am looking for a biblical mandate against what I would call "casual sex," meaning an instance where sex occurs without exchange of money or breaking an existing marital contract.  In leiu of a strict biblical injunction, what is the earliest condemnation of such a sexual relationship?

1 Corinthians 7 (ASV) says:

  8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
  9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Adding to what @caseyr547 answered, I understand that in verses 7 and 8 the apostle Paul clearly states that any sexual contact between two unmarried couple should be avoided. If continence is not possible, marriage is the only choice besides the circumstances.

So the context of this chapter includes pre and posmarital sex in the concept of fornication.


What does Jesus say about your spirit going to heaven? I had an interesting question presented to me by a rector of a church.  He asked me to find anywhere in the bible where Jesus spoke of your spirit going to heaven and then research those specific passages (find the original documents and look at different translations).  While I thought about it for a while and then jumped in to do research, I found it not as easy I thought it would be.

Where does Jesus speak specifically about the spirit?

Excellent question.  You're right, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot on the topic in Scripture, so I'm going to give this the best try I can.

Jesus seems to imply that his spirit will be with God the Father when he died.

Luke 23:46:

  Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit
  my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

This seems to me to be an assumption that at least his spirit will be with God the Father.  We could then conclude from other passages in scripture, including those that indicate that Christ is the firstborn of all creation, and those in Romans 5 comparing and contrasting Christ to Adam, that our spirits will also be in heaven with Christ if we're found in Him.

The only other area I could find directly from Jesus mouth is when he's talking to Nicodemus in John 3, and this is probably where the greatest evidence for spirits in heaven exists.

John 3:5-6:

  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of
  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which
  is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
  spirit."

It seems like these two verses can be taken together to say that the Holy Spirit is the spiritual analogue to a human mother, and nobody can enter into the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit, that is, unless they have a spirit.  Essentially, he seems to be saying that flesh doesn't enter into the Kingdom of God, but spirit does.

Of course, accepting this interpretation depends on your view of the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.


How does Catholic doctrine differ from LDS doctrine concerning God the Father? In a related question, it was asked,

  How do Mormons explain the apparent contradiction to their belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones found in the paralleled scriptures below;

    John 4:24 God is a Spirit...

    Luke 24: ... a spirit does not have flesh and bones...

to which one inidividual answered,

  Good question.

  God is a spirit as we are spirits—each human has a spirit residing within a mortal body. Likewise, Mormons believe God is a spirit residing within a perfected, glorified, and immortal body.

  From lds.org:

    The Greek text of John 4:24 contains no article before the word spirit. Thus, the Greek phrase can also be understood to mean “God is spirit,” or “God is spiritual.” The Apostle John also wrote that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but these statements do not mean that God is only light, or that God is love and nothing else. Neither do we understand the statement that “man is spirit” (D&C 93:33) to mean that man is only spirit and nothing else. In the same sense, John 4:24 does not mean that God is only spirit. From latter-day revelation, we know that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

    In the context of the Savior’s teachings about true worship, the statement in John 4:24 can be seen as commentary more about the nature of worship than the nature of God. Since God is a spiritual being, people must worship Him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), not merely through outward rituals performed at certain locations (see John 4:20–21).
    Introduction and Timeline for John 2–4

Is Catholic doctrine in agreement with the individual’s answer (i.e., LDS doctrine)? If not, in what way does the aforementioned LDS doctrine (per LDS.org) differ from Catholic doctrine?

Catholic doctrine does not agree with LDS doctrine

CCC 370

  In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

LDS doctrine on God

  God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's” (D&C 130:22).


What Scriptures did Arius use to support teaching that Jesus was created? Arius probably quoted the following:

Revelation 3:14: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.
Psalm 8:5–6: thou madest Him
Proverbs 8:22–25: the LORD possessed [H7069 strongs, get, acquire, create] me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old... when there were no depths I was brought forth.

What other scriptures did Arius use to support his teaching that Jesus was created?

In the early fourth century, many Christians were divided over how best to understand the relationship between God and Jesus. Emperor Constantine called for an ecumenical council of bishops to settle the matter: the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD. The result was a condemnation of 'the Arian heresy'.

Letter to Emperor Constantine
A few years later, in 327 AD, Arius and his ally Euzoïus addressed a letter to Emperor Constantine to explain what their beliefs were. (Presumably, they didn't trust their trinitarian opponents to accurately represent them.) Arius wrote:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the holy spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other.
This faith we have received from the holy gospels, in which the Lord says to his disciples, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit.’ If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.

In the second paragraph cited above, Arius included Matthew 28.19, a verse often used to argue for the trinity. By citing this passage, Arius was showing that he was not ignorant of its existence, and thus implicitly that he did not believe it taught a trinitarian theology.
The first paragraph above, Arius presents the beliefs of his group in the form of a creed. (The shape of this creed was possibly in direct response to the Nicene Creed that had been drafted at the council.) Notably, Arius' creed begins with an apparent allusion to 1 Corinthians 8.6 ('We believe in God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son'). Because Paul identifies each 'God the Father' and 'the Lord Jesus Christ', Arius seems to have taken this as a hard distinction between the two. This is a starting point, but very little else is readily discernible from this letter.

Letter to Alexander
A much more accessible letter to work with would be Arius' letter to Alexander circa 320 AD. Alexander was the bishop of Alexandria, and one of Arius' opponents. In this letter, Arius wrote his group's beliefs:

We acknowledge one God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Covenant. Who begat an only-begotten son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages and all that was made; who begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten.

Now we have something to work with. Arius provides a dense cluster of allusions to Old and New Testament scripture, giving us a much stronger sense of his approach to the Bible as a whole:

"We acknowledge one God" — Presumably Deuteronomy 6.4 would be the ultimate origin of his point, but the phrase 'one God' is scattered throughout both Old and New Testaments.
"Alone unbegotten" — Psalm 2.7 would be the ultimate origin of this, as this psalm was popularly associated with Jesus (e.g. Acts 13.33; Hebrews 1.5). Arius took this to mean that, if Jesus was 'begotten', he must have had a beginning. This would go on to become one of the chief arguments used by Arius and those in agreement with him.
"Alone everlasting" — Possibly Isaiah 40.28 (Isaiah 40-55 has numerous examples of monotheistic proclamations), or perhaps Romans 16.26.
"Alone true" — John 17.3, where in prayer Jesus identifies the Father as 'the only true God'. While the Hebrew term 'elohim and the Greek term theos may be applied in various ways to human, angelic, or even demonic entities, Arius took this verse to mean that the Father alone could truly be identified with the term 'God', and thus not Jesus.
"Alone having immortality" — This is an explicit reference to 1 Timothy 6.15-16, where the author of the epistle wrote that God 'alone has immortality' (cf. 1 Timothy 1.17). Since God (whom Arius had already identified one-to-one with 'the Father') is alone immortal, Arius reasoned that Jesus was not immortal in the same sense, and thus not 'God'.
"Alone wise" — Romans 16.27, where Paul concludes his letter with a benediction 'to the only wise God forevermore through Jesus Christ!'
"Alone good" — Mark 10.18. Arius read this to mean that Jesus denied being God.
"Alone sovereign, judge, and governor" — 1 Timothy 6.15, where the author of the epistle says God is 'the only sovereign, the king of kings, and lord of lords' (cf. 1 Timothy 1.17).

Later in the same letter, Arius wrote:

Therefore he thus has his being from God; and glories, and life, and all things have been given over to him; in this way God is his beginning. For he is over him, as his God and being before him. But if the expressions 'from him' and 'from the womb' and 'I came from the Father, and I have come', are understood by some to mean that he is part of him, one in essence or as an emanation, then the Father is, according to them, compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and as far as their belief goes, the incorporeal God endures a body.

Here Arius explicitly cites three passages to distinguish Jesus as having a beginning and origin, in contrast to 'the eternal God'. Presumably, the passages Arius is quoting from were:

"from him" — John 6.46.
"from the womb" — Psalm 110.3.
"I came from the Father, and I have come" — John 16.28.

Thalia
Arius also wrote a poem titled Thalia, though it is uncertain when the poem was written, or even if what we have is an authentic copy of the text. (All we have is provided by his opponents.) The existing text does allude to Proverbs 8.22-25, and possibly also combines it with Revelation 3.14:

He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things

and

Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God
. . .
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son

Summary
We could continue, but I think this is enough to demonstrate the key passages Arius relied on, as well as his general hermeneutic to the scriptures. Whenever Arius saw a biblical author speaking of 'one God', or that God 'alone' had an attribute, he took this as antithetical to a trinitarian theology. Whenever Arius saw a biblical author distinguishing between 'God' and 'Jesus', he took this to mean Jesus was not himself God.


How many people were killed by the Sanhedrin around the time of Paul? In the Bible, the Sanhedrin condemned:

Jesus
James the Just
Stephen

The death penalty was supposed to be rare, as Mishnah Makkot 1:10 states:

  A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'

Yet they killed at least 3 in about a 40 year period, and those are only the prominent ones.

How many people total did they kill, and why did they deviate from the accepted wisdom about capital punishment?

This is not to promote antisemitism. I'm simply interested in the historical facts.

How many they killed is not easy to know in absence of any historical records. They must have killed many and they did conspire to kill these three prominent ones and few more.The Sanhedrin did not have the power under Roman authority to put someone to death (Jn 18:31). This power was supposedly revoked in 30 A.D. But that did not keep them from hatching conspiracies in these meetings to get their opponets killed and they were only short of passing a formal death sentence.

Plotted to kill Jesus through Romans:

In absence of this power, Sanhedrin plotted to have Him murdered (Jn 11:47-53), paid Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Mt 26:14-16)(Mk 14:10-11)(Lk 22:1-6), had Him arrested and tried Him using false witnesses to accuse Him (Mt 26:47-66)(Mk 14:43-65)(Lk 22:47-53)(Jn 18:1-27), then pressured Pontus Pilate into having Him crucified (Mt 27:1-26)(Mk 15:1-15)(Lk 23:1-25)(Jn 18:28-19:16).

Also  this court was to meet every day during daytime hours and was not to meet on the Sabbath or holy days,but broke this rule to condemn Jesus.

They plotted to kill James the just and Stephan:

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, in 62 A.D. the High Priest named Ananus assembled a Sanhedrin who condemned James, the Lord's brother, "on the charge of breaking the law" and had him stoned to death.

They also got Stephan killed by infuriating a mob:The Sanhedrin listened to the charges brought against Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:1) and then allowed the murder of Stephen by stoning (Acts 7:54-60).

Also in addition to these three:

The Sanhedrin also ordered Peter and John not to proclaim the name of Jesus (Acts 4:1-22), and when they would not stop, they had them beaten (Acts 5:17-42).

Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin and spoke to them (Acts 22:30-23:6), and afterwards they conspired to murder him (Acts 23:12-22).

Why this historical nuance?

Truly the Stakes were  very high and if we agree with your view that "Sanhedrin that condemn one man to death in 75 years is bloody" then killing of these prominent three, can be only described as a knee jerk action in a do or die situation to arrest a budding movement that was to change the face of this world. Jewish authorities had rightly judged this movement as not any ordinary one.  Jews had already lost their political clout and now they were in the process of  losing their religious hold on general Jewish public. This echoed in Bible:

John 11:47–48

  Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.


Why did Jesus never address God by the name "Jehovah"? What explanations have been offered for why Jesus never addressed God in His prayers by the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"?

The word Jehovah is a Latin version of the Tetragrammaton, usually considered the Hebrew name of God. Most scholars consider Jehovah "a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai", and not to have been used before 1100AD. Obviously Jesus would not have used a word invented 1100 years after his earthly life.

It is widely thought that Jesus DID use the Hebrew name of God, in John 8:58:

  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The reaction of the hearers was such that they clearly believed he was using the name of God.

It was the practice of the Jews not to use the name of God at that time, so he may simply have wished to not muddy the waters by giving offence. Technically the name YHWH applies just as much to him as it does the Father, so that may have accounted for it.


What is the support for saying Jesus believed Genesis was a literal account of creation? Ken Ham has said "I take Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did."

I've also seen this stated other places, but haven't seen anything that Jesus said which backs up this train of thought.

What is the Biblical support for stating that Jesus took the creation account in Genesis as literal history and not figuratively?

Jesus did not make an explicit statement on the matter, but he did seem to take Genesis as true and historical in some sense.

Consider Jesus's words in Mark 10:6ff on divorce:

  "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

with a parallel is in Matthew 19:1ff:

  "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

It seems that Jesus here assumes, rather than states outright or tries to prove, Adam to be a historical person at the beginning of creation.† As far as I can tell, the historicity of Adam was the shared view of all the Jews in the first century, including Paul (see especially Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 11:8f; 15:21f,45ff; 1 Tim 2:13f), and I don't see any reason to impute a different view to Jesus. Indeed, this passage seems to give some evidence that he held the standard view.

The key is "from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’" Ken Ham reads the first part as meaning "at the beginning" (as the NIV and other translations render it, and that's a fair interpretation of "from" in this context), and he takes the making of them male and female as happening there "at the beginning of creation."

But one could also accept Adam as historical and at the beginning (like Ham), while arguing that Jesus and the author of Genesis both believed the methods and timeline of creation are telescoped and stylized,‡ rather than a strictly historical play-by-play record as in Ham's understanding.

Under such a view, if perhaps Adam were the culmination of God's work after 13.8 billion years of creating, starting the history of mankind proper, then Jesus' understanding in the parallel passages above could be compatible with a non-Young Earth Creationist view.

In short, it seems there are multiple plausible interpretations of Jesus' words§ related to how he thought Genesis should be understood. Ken Ham has one plausible interpretation, but there are others, even among conservatives.

Footnotes:

† Calvin also sees this as the natural reading: "[according to Jesus,] the order of creation ought to serve for a law.... And thus from the order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife." Calvin also here assumes, rather than proves, the historicity of the Genesis creation account.

‡ For instance, Genesis 1-2:3 presents the light being created before the ordinary sources of such electromagnetic radiation, namely the sun and stars. Interpreters going back at least to Augustine in the 400s have thus seen this passage as a highly stylized (but still good, true, and beautiful) account of creation, but not a play-by-play list of events. (Compare the Framework interpretation.) John Walton presents another view that also has a historical Adam but a stylized account of the world's and Adam's origins since it is a "functional" rather than "material" description.

In short, there are multiple plausible interpretations of the creation besides Ham's play-by-play, and many of them have a good footing in Christian tradition. Hence, one may have to choose between the different views based on other factors, such as presuppositions about the authority of the Bible, the overall method of interpretation of it, one's understanding of nature ("God's other book"), etc.

§ Similar things could be said of the New Testament apostles in their writings.


Can we tell when the Roman pontiff is speaking "EX CATHEDRA"? A related question and answer here. Following the comment:

  That may seem clear to some, however the idea and language of
  infallibility has evolved over hundreds of year and has many nuances.
  Most experts will agree that Popes have spoken infallibly at least
  twice, but there is much debate about if and when there have been
  other times. Intention, language, form, authority and other objections
  are often raised. There is a nice intro here if you are interested

It seems to me that when a Pope speaks, there is no way to tell for sure whether he is speaking  "EX CATHEDRA", or issuing infallible statement without the benefit of hindsight. Heck, even with the benefit of hindsight, there are still debates as to whether a statement issued by a Pope is an infallible one or not. But I am not too sure of this point.

So, without having a crystal ball and being able to look into the future, can we tell, when a pope speaks, whether he is issuing "EX CATHEDRA"?

As you have known already not all pronouncements from a pope is spoken ex-cathedra. And the answer that you have quoted notes the three points to be fulfilled in order to make a pronouncement ex-cathedra:

  to be held by the whole church,
  in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals

If we test any pronouncement against it, we will know whether the pronouncement is spoken ex-cathedra or not.

Example 1: The words of canonization:

  "For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the fostering of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own (2), after due deliberation and frequent prayers for the divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of our Brother Bishops, we declare and define(3) that --Name of the Person Here--, is a saint and we enroll him/her among the saints, decreeing that he/she is to be venerated in the whole Church(1) as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

Example 2: Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary:

  By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority(2), we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma (3): that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. ........ Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith(1).

Example 3: Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception

  Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own (2): ...... We declare, pronounce and define (3) that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful(1).

Pronouncements that fulfill these conditions will be considered as an ex-cathedra statement. But it is to be noted that all of these pronouncements in the future probably will be announced before hand to the press and will be explicitly mentioned that it is an ex-cathedra/dogmatic declaration.


Could Christ who carried our sins on the cross forgive those same sins? Christ who bore our sins on the Cross:

  1 Peter 2:24 (NASB77)
  24  and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Also forgave sins under the Law:

  Luke 5:24 (NASB77)
  24  "But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"-- He said to the paralytic-- "I say to you, rise, and take up your stretcher and go home."

If Christ is the offering for the sins, isn't He forgiving Himself?

Or....

Is it that Christ is the Mediator as high priest to God for the sins under the NT (and God not Christ forgives those sins) but acted as equal to God under the Law but not the sacrafice for those sins?

These passages are dealing with different components of forgiveness. The first text is the basis of all forgiveness of sins, while the second deals with the application of that forgiveness to a specific individual. Remember, forgiveness had been an integral part of Judaism from the beginning.


What is the oldest recorded filmed Catholic mass? Where can I view the oldest filmed recording of a mass?

What is the oldest recorded filmed Catholic mass?
The first televised Catholic Mass was on Christmas Eve 1948.

Letter of his Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger for the 50th Anniversary of the First Broadcast of Midnight Mass Celebrated in the Cathedral of Norte-Dame de Paris
To Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger
Archbishop of Paris
On Christmas Eve in 1948, Fr Raymond Pichard, O.P., in agreement with the Société française de Télévision, had the good idea of the first-ever world-wide broadcast of the Midnight Mass celebrated in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of this event, which marked an important turning point in the proclamation of the Gospel, I willingly join in prayer all who contribute to the broadcast Le Jour du Seigneur, the pastors and faithful who are once again gathered in Notre-Dame de Paris on this occasion and all those who are following Christmas Mass on radio and television.
Through the media, the French public transmission offers Catholics and people of goodwill the opportunity to see or hear religious broadcasts: this also permits members of the faithful who are unable to go for serious reasons to participate in the Eucharistic celebration, especially on the days and times which, for the Christian community, are dedicated to Sunday and feast-day gatherings. This Christian presence over the air is part of the tradition of dialogue and openness which do France honour.
I ask Christ, whose birth among men we celebrate on this most holy night, to be close to all who are taking part in this liturgy or joining in it thanks to the media. May the Saviour, who came to bring peace to the world, give comfort and hope to all people of goodwill, so that together they can build a society of justice and love! On the occasion of this 50th anniversary of the televised broadcast of Mass, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to all who contribute to this broadcast and its transmission, as well as to the celebrants, preachers, Christian communities and faithful who join in the liturgy by means of radio and television.
From the Vatican, 2 December 1998.
Ioannes Paulus PP. II

Where can I view the oldest filmed recording of a mass?
The first Catholic Mass was aired by the French broadcasting company Le Jour du Seigneur in 1949.

The oldest French television series that is still running. Since 1949, it has aired every Sunday morning for an hour and a half. The program airs Catholic religious ceremonies, interviews and testimonials.

Le Jour du Seigneur est issu du travail précurseur du père dominicain Raymond Pichard. Le 24 décembre 1948, il obtient la retransmission de la messe de minuit depuis la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris sur RDF Télévision française . C'est une première mondiale. - Le Jour du Seigneur (émission de télévision)

Noël historique: La première messe télévisée en direct de Notre-Dame de Paris IMBd
Until I can find a complete source, please accept a partial viewing of this mass from a French YouTube video: Messe de Noël 1948 (INA)
Hopefully I will be able to find the complete Mass for you shortly.


What are the main denominations in the world practicing seventh-day Sabbatarianism? What percentage of Christendom do they represent? I would like to know if there are reputable sources presenting anything close to an exhaustive listing of the main denominations around the world adhering to seventh-day Sabbatarianism. Similarly, are there recent studies estimating the percentage of Christendom that practices seventh-day Sabbatarianism?

By far the largest seventh day sabbatarian churches are the Seventh Day Adventist church which has approximately 21 million members, and the Seventh Day Baptist churches with approximately 50,000 members worldwide.
This means they represent about 1% of Christians


What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula? Oneness Pentecostals and others who hold to "Jesus-name" (or "Jesus-only") baptism maintain that the trinitarian formula used by Nicene Christians and others is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19 and a failure to recognize that all recorded baptisms in the New Testament were done in the name of Jesus only.

The argument goes something like this:

Matthew 28:19 refers to a single "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that "name" is Jesus.
Baptisms and baptismal commands described in Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, and 22:16 all invoke the name of Jesus, with no indication of a trinitarian formula.

To me the second point in particular is not easily dismissed.  I'm thus interested in the history of the trinitarian baptismal formula.

What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching on baptism that contradicts "Jesus-name" baptism and calls for a trinitarian (three-part) baptismal formula?

To be clear, the word trinitarian here does not indicate a belief in Nicene trinitarianism: it simply refers to the three-part nature of the baptismal formula: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. So a church father whose views do not neatly coincide with Nicaea's could still employ a "trinitarian baptismal formula."

Two early church writings can be seen to address this issue: the Didache and Justin Martyr's First Apology.
Didache
Early evidence for a trinitarian formula in baptism might be found in the Didache, which is commonly dated to the late first century:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. [Chapter 7]

The author of this text includes the language of Matthew 28:19 twice alongside more specific instructions regarding the method of baptism.  Of course, because the language is the same as that of Matthew, the same argument could be applied here: that the text really is referring to the singular "name" of Jesus.  Interestingly, however, despite the very explicit instructions contained here regarding the mode of baptism, there is no explicit teaching here that the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is actually Jesus: instead, the phrase is merely repeated twice.
Thus the Didache contains perhaps a stronger statement for a trinitarian formula than Matthew 28:19, given the context, but the instruction here is still inconclusive.
First Apology
Sometime between AD 147 and 161, Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology, and in it we have an early clear expression of the trinitarian formula being used in baptism.  He writes:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. [Chapter 61]

Notice here that Justin specifically references "Jesus Christ" instead of the "Son."  Justin thus goes against the "Jesus-only" interpretation, since his words would reduce their interpretation to a tautology, "the name of Jesus is Jesus." Later in the same chapter, he makes this understanding even more clear, by referring to the singular name of the Father, name of Jesus, and name of the Holy Spirit:

There is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe [...] And in the name of Jesus Christ, [...] and in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Summary
This is by no means the last word on this subject, as it was a matter of significant debate in the early church.  But at the very least we have explicit use of the trinitarian (three-part) formula dating to the middle of the second century, and some inconclusive evidence for it dating to the first.


(Catholic view) What was the scriptural basis for the existence of limbo? Looking at this other question, limbo is an intermediary place for (some) souls to dwell in until they get to heaven.

One of the answers to the question mentions two kinds of limbo:

Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs (limbus inferni seu patrum)
Limbo for children (limbus puerorum)

What is (or was) the biblical basis for the existence of these?

Addressing the question "Whether the limbo of hell is the same as Abraham's bosom?," St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a few scriptural verses:

  The place whither the beggar Lazarus was taken is called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22-23]. Now he was taken to hell, for as a gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xx] on Job 30:23, "Where a house is appointed for every one that liveth," says: "Hell was the house of all the living until the coming of Christ." Therefore Abraham's bosom is the same as limbo.


Where is the prophecy of the star that the wise men followed? Is the star that the wise men saw that caused them to come to Bethlehem prophesied in the Bible? If so, where is that prophecy?

The wise men spoke about the star here:

  1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matthew 2:1-2, KJV)

A bright light will shine to all parts of the earth; many nations shall come to you from afar, And the inhabitants of all the limits of the earth, drawn to you by the name of the Lord God, Bearing in their hands their gifts for the King of heaven. Every generation shall give joyful praise in you, and shall call you the chosen one, through all ages forever. (Tobit 13:11)

Tobit is part of the original Christian canon.  Today, the book is called apocryphal.


Different genealogy in Matthew and Luke In the Matthew and Luke we can read the genealogy of Jesus. While in Matthew 1 it dates back to Abraham, in Luke 3 it goes back to Adam.

What's the significance of this difference?

The gospel of Jesus, written by Luke, has a specific reason for giving the genealogy that he does. Notice where Luke suddenly (almost unexpectedly) places that genealogy. He plonks it right inbetween Jesus' baptism in the Jordan river and the temptations in the wilderness (Luke 3:23-38). Why would a genealogy appear there, in the narrative?
Well, consider that as it ends up with Adam, we are seeing the link (which is an unsmashable chain) from Jesus the Son of God, the second Adam, to the first son of God, the man Adam. The significance here is that we are meant to see that Jesus' temptation and victory needs to be viewed in light of the testing and defeat of the first Adam. To quote from this truly helpful book's chapter on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ when on earth:

"The conflict in which Jesus engaged is, therefore, to be seen as a
re-run of Eden. Like Adam before him, Jesus was incited to 'be as God'
and to reject [God's] word. But he chose the way of God-glorifying
obedience and suffering instead... Jesus, anointed with the Spirit,
was carried obediently and overcomingly through the test of the
wilderness... Thus, in the power of the Spirit, in the inhospitable
desert which the world had become through the first Adam's sin, the
second man, the eschatological Adam (ho eschatos Adam, 1 Cor.
15:45), regained enemy-occupied territory." Sinclair Ferguson, The
Holy Spirit, p 49 (ivp 1996)

Luke has a strong emphasis in his account of the role of the Holy Spirit with regard to Jesus. At his baptism, the Holy Spirit descends, fluttering-like as a dove. Luke has a theme of how the Spirit is given regularly in response to prayer and in connection with the advance of the kingdom, hence the Spirit immediately leading Christ into the wilderness and being with him for the duration, for this was the start of Jesus' earthly ministry.  After Jesus' triumph over Satan's temptations, Jesus returned to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). What we see in Jesus was fully realized human holiness and wisdom, over-turning the damage done by the first Adam's lack of holiness and wisdom. As the book further explains:

"The Spirit came upon him while he was praying, following his baptism
(Lk. 3:21)... This event marks Jesus' public entrance into and
consecration to his messianic ministry... He comes on the scene as the
long-awaited prophet of God. In addition, Luke's reference to Jesus
being about thirty years of age (Lk. 3:23) probably reflects the age
of entry into priestly service. Jesus is thus also viewed as an
anointed priest.. Just as the High Priest prepared for his
atonement-day ministry by washing and anointing, so Jesus received the
washing of this baptism and the anointing of the Spirit with a view to
his own priestly ministry. In his water-baptism he consecrates himself
by prayer to his coming death-baptism (cf.Jn. 17:19). The heavenly
voice he hears echoes the words of enthronement from Psalm 2:7,
underlining that Jesus is entering into the ministry of the universal
king. The coming of the Spirit therefore is an anointing for the
three-fold messianic office prefigured by prophets, priests and kings.
...Jesus is the 'second man' and the 'last Adam' who will become
life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45-47)... who will bring rest to a
cursed world. ...Thus the Spirit comes on Christ as the head of the
new creation." (ibid. pp 45 & 47)

Luke's genealogy is bringing the reader's attention to the critically important bond between the first Adam, who failed at the first temptation, and the second Adam, who triumphed and undid all the damage done by the first man and Satan. That is why that particular genealogy is placed at that particular point in the narrative.


How can we defend our faith against the "Argument from Evil" or "Problem of Evil"? Of all of the arguments against the Bible from a stance of pure logic which I have ever heard, the only one which seems to be able to stand up to honest, logical scrutiny in even the smallest way is the Problem of Evil.

Clearly, from a Biblical standpoint, we can say that our free will, given to us by God, causes the sufferings that man brings on other men. The common rebuttal to this: that God's omniscience would cause Him to know the things we will do and thus render free will an illusion, can be shown to be invalid through some simply logical reasoning. Namely, that it is sound logic to say that "correlation does not prove (nor imply) causation", and that God's knowledge of our actions (even if it is beforehand) correlating with our choice to undertake said actions, by no means proves the causation of our actions on the part of God. We are still left with bearing the responsibility for said actions and their consequences, as God's foreknowledge of our choice does not compel us to choose that option. Furthermore, the idea that God exists "outside of time" lends support to this argument (although it is unnecessary in this argument).

Unfortunately, this argument cannot be used to explain the suffering found in nature (animals hurting animals), nor can it explain natural disasters. Is there a theologian or apologetic scholar who has written to explain a way to rationalize this? Is there anyone here who has studied this in depth and can offer a rationalization?

I haven't personally read Alvin Plantinga, but I've read that he tried to answer question of "natural evil" in a very interesting way. See some short description here http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H6 and more in his books: "The Nature of Necessary", "God, Freedom, and Evil".

What I personally think is that there is a great problem of perception. I think that St Augustine might also went that way in his "Confessions". I think that what we perceive as "evil" is often some disordered good (or not well understood good), for everything that God created was good - even microorganisms living, fighting, suffering and dying in our bodies.

So from where this disorder comes? I think that Moses gives us a hint. In first book of Bible he is describing some ancient events. He couldn't see it himself and we don't know how he came to have knowledge about them - maybe God or his angels directly described it to him or maybe it was brought to him in a visionary dream or maybe Moses in prophetic spirit recognized grains of truth in myths preserved by people. It is not important.

What is important is that among other things he tells us a story of punishment, and this punishment is essentially a suffering from natural causes: pains from body, unfriendly environment. This punishment is an element of justice, it is not evil.

It is important to make some distinctions here. For example someone could say that to kill someone is an evil thing, but this is not true. To MURDER someone is evil and when you look at Ten Commandments in Hebrew then you will see that there is no "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder". Are there situations where killing is acceptable? Yes, there are and you can find some of them described in the Bible. You can also use your common sense: if you are suddenly attacked and you act in self defense and kill whoever attacked you then it is not considered evil.

Similarily, it is not evil in itself to make someone suffer. But it is evil to make someone suffer without proper cause. For example, Bible recommends using force in education if it is necessary for saving someones' soul. What is REALLY evil is disobedience to God. And that was not created by him, for he is not disobedient to himself, but this is a product of our ancestors' use of free will.

All other things may be seen by us as "evil" but in reality they may be just misunderstood acts of justice, of punishment and of workings of nature. Natural disasters aren't evil and suffering of animals isn't evil in itself.


Is prayer effectively second-guessing God? If one were to accept that God has a plan and that His will is to be honored, isn't hoping to sway God's plan for the future disrespectful?

-- Update --

A lot of these answers are across the board, so here's an example to help refine the question:

  Someone's wife is gravely ill and in the hospital, and her church's
  parishioners say they will "keep her in their prayers".

It's safe to assume that they will pray for God to reverse his direction regarding her health and make her better, and it's also fair to say they're not asking him to show them the way to do it themselves.

Just making a request for him to rethink the matter, it seems. Where does that fall?

I think the following explanation of prayer is very helpful:

  Prayer

  Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

So we don't pray to change God's will, we pray to learn about it.

  Matthew 7:7 (KJV)

  7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

But yes, trying to change God's will is disrespectful. You're essentially saying that you are wiser than God.

  Romans 11:34 (KJV)

  34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?


Eating eggs and cheese to refute heresy? I recently finished the wonderful book 'Elder Zosima: the Hesychast of Siberia'. In it, Elder Basil becomes excessively zealous at one point and decides to fast from eggs and dairy permanently rather than eating them for two particular weeks out of the year (I think cheesefare and Bright Week). Elder Zosima tells him not to trust in his own understanding and that his zeal is "not according to knowledge" since the church has intentionally prescribed eggs and dairy-even for ascetics-on two weeks of the year for the sake of refuting heresies.
Why has the church prescribed eggs and dairy for all Orthodox during certain times of the year? Perhaps something to do with the perfect humanity of Christ?

Eating eggs and cheese to refute heresy?
Hard to truly understand what Zosima is trying to say, but in general the Orthodox Churches has a far stricter set of rules when it comes to fasting than the Western Churches.
For example in the Catholic Church butter, eggs, cheese are common fare on fasting days, but in the Orthodox Churches these are not eaten on fast days. The Orthodox are still holding on to their traditions and basically that is very commendable.
The West has stopped abstaining from these foods Holy Week, but the East has retained them.
The idea of abstaining from these foods at different times of the year is simply because they are considered animal based products.
At one time in Christendom, almost all practiced fast very seriously, but now it seems that the Orthodox are the main forerunners in keeping this tradition alive.
It is most noble to say the least, but in this domain they stick out as holding on to tradition very firmly.
This may be the sense that Zosima is speaking of, in keeping the Orthodox Faith free from following the West and possibly their heresies.
Without any more details one cannot make an absolute decision.
One point, I do not understand is why he would choice Cheesefare Week and Bright Week for fasting?
Bright Week is a time of genuine religious celebration!

Bright Week or Renewal Week is the first week following the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which is celebrated each year at Pascha. It ends the following Sunday, the Sunday of St. Thomas. For Orthodox Christians Bright Week begins a period of celebration that continues for fifty days until Pentecost.
This celebration includes the practice of the faithful joyously greeting each other with the salutation of Christ is risen, followed by the response indeed He is risen or truly He is risen, as the whole of creation is renewed by Our Lord and Savior. The services of Bright Week are done with the Royal Doors fully open. This unblocked view of the altar symbolizes the open door of Christ's empty tomb as well as the rent veil of the Jewish Temple, which was torn apart at the moment Christ died.
The entire week is considered to be one continuous day and the main reason why fasting is completely prohibited to all Orthodox during the week.

As for Cheesefare Week, it is a sort of a very modest form of feasting just before the Great Lent. It brings back the thought of Pancake week here in the West.

Cheesefare Week, also known as Maslenitsa (Ма́сленица), Butter Week, or Pancake week. It is celebrated during the last week before Great Lent—that is, the seventh week before Pascha (Easter). Cheesefare roughly corresponds to the Western Christian Carnival (Mardi Gras, or Shrove Tuesday), except that Orthodox Lent begins on a Monday instead of a Wednesday, and the Orthodox date of Easter can differ greatly from the Western Christian date. In 2008, Cheesefare was celebrated from March 2 to March 8.
Cheesefare is the last week before the onset of Great Lent. During Cheesefare week, meat is already forbidden to Orthodox Christians, making it a "meat-fast week" (Russian myasopustnaya nedelya (мясопустная неделя)). During Lent, meat, fish, dairy products and eggs are forbidden. Furthermore, Lent also excludes parties, secular music, dancing and other distractions from the spiritual life. Thus, Cheesefare represents the last chance to partake of dairy products and those social activities that are not appropriate during the more prayerful, sober and introspective Lenten season.

It seems ironic that many Christians now feast just before Lent. In the Roman Catholic Church fasting was gradually introduced liturgically just prior to Lent with the Season of Septuagesima
The Syriac Orthodox still practices the Fast of Nineveh, a three-day fast starting the third Monday before Clean Monday from Sunday Midnight to Wednesday noon during which participants abstain from all dairy foods and meat products. However, some parishioners abstain from food and drink altogether from Sunday midnight to Wednesday after Holy Qurbono, which is celebrated before noon.

In Syriac Christianity, the Fast of Nineveh is a three-day fast starting the third Monday before Clean Monday from Sunday Midnight to Wednesday noon during which participants abstain from all dairy foods and meat products. However, some parishioners abstain from food and drink altogether from Sunday midnight to Wednesday after Holy Qurbono, which is celebrated before noon. The three day fast of Nineveh commemorates the three days that Prophet Jonah spent inside the belly of the Great Fish and the subsequent fast and repentance of the Ninevites at the warning message of the prophet Jonah according to the bible. (Book of Jonah in the Bible). Marutha of Tikrit is known to have imposed the Fast of Nineveh, and served as Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Church until his death on 2 May 649.

The whole idea of Mardi Gras seems foreign in the minds of traditionally minded Christians.
Is Zosima referring to Maslenitsa, the last week before Great Lent? It does make sense, but without knowing what he meant, one is unable to really know. This may be the reason why he abstain from certain foods during Cheesefare Week?

Maslenitsa also known as Butter Lady, Butter Week, Crepe week, or Cheesefare Week) is an Eastern Slavic religious and folk holiday, which has retained a number of elements of Slavic mythology in its ritual, celebrated during the last week before Great Lent, that is, the eighth week before Eastern Orthodox Pascha.
The date of Maslenitsa changes every year depending on the date of the celebration of Easter. It corresponds to the Western Christian Carnival, except that Orthodox Lent begins on a Monday instead of a Wednesday, and the Orthodox date of Easter can differ greatly from the Western Christian date.
The traditional attributes of the Maslenitsa celebration are the scarecrow of Maslenitsa, sleigh rides, festivities. Russians bake pancakes and tortillas, Belarusians and Ukrainians bake dumplings, cheese cakes.

As for his abstaining during Bright Week, that may be a little harder to flesh out.
There is at least one of the Church Fathers that states if we over indulge in eating after a fast, we may lose all the merit we might have gained during a fast, such as during the Great Lent. Unfortunately, I can not remember who made this point, but will add it when I find it.


Does the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia still exist? I have searched many sites to find evidence of the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia. But I have failed to find any evidence of the real body, only statues of the saint. Can anyone help to find out real photo of the saint's incorrupted body?

Here is an article on the saint St. Cecilia | New Advent. It mentions the saint's body, but does not give an indication as to whether it is corrupt or not.

This may also be of interest: St. Cecilia

Mystics of the Church has:

Cases of incorruptibility go back a long way. The first saint whose body was found to be incorrupt was St. Cecilia, who was martyred in AD 177. Her remains were moved to a new site in 822, and in 1599 an exhumation revealed her body to be incorrupt. Over the centuries more than 100 cases of saints whose bodies have remained incorruptible have come to light, sometimes, as with St. Cecilia, many years after their death.

This photo in The crypt of St.Cecilia | The Christian Catacombs of Rome depicts he statue of St.Cecilia a copy of the celebrated work sculptured by Stefano Maderno in 1599.

From this artice Santa Cecilia in Trastevere - Rome, Italy - Sacred Destinations and this St Cecilia | MADERNO, Stefano, the statue represents the position in which St Cecilia's body was found. A section in the former has:

  In front of the choir is a moving sculpture by Stefano Maderno of Cecilia's incorrupt body as it was found when exhumed in 1599.
  Contorted and yest somehow graceful, the statue is hignly unusual and
  has great emotional impact.

Long answer short: no display of the body itself and no pictures of the body itself for obvious reasons, should the body continue to be incorrupt [has cuts in the neck], the body would be as the statues depict it. Her relics are in Trastevere, in the basilica dedicated to her, since they were transferred there in 821.

St. Cecilia is a Patron Saint of Musicians, a good saint to be invoked in a family where say, the children are learning music.

PS You could also write to the Basilica.


What is the biblical basis for the forgiveness of sins for very evil persons? LDC asked this question before; it was down voted 8 times before it was closed, probably because of a provocative title and lack of a specific question. My editing of his question is: what are the biblical bases for forgiveness of sins and heaven available to evil persons such as Hitler, serial killers and ISIS terrorists? Is it as simple as just asking for forgiveness only? Thank you for you patient answer.

Yes, the bible says that some sins are not forgiven. There are three sins that I know of:

the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31), which many scholars simply consider to be a lack of saving faith in Jesus;

refusing to forgive, or not valuing the forgiveness offered to you freely (Matthew 6:15); and,

"backsliding" (Hebrews 6:6), which is again, apparently, despising the forgiveness offered by Jesus on the cross.

I remember a story about a famous prison minister (I think it was Chuck  ?    of the Watergate scandal) who said that he was suprised by the reaction of Christians when he told them that an infamous serial killer (I think it was the Son of Sam) had confessed and become a Christian before his execution.  But Christians should remember that we have all sinned, and Jesus' Easter sacrifice is cheapened if it only covers some of the our sins.  I know that there is the possibility for murderers (e.g. one of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus) and even mass murderers can be saved, but as with any sin, it is very difficult to become sincere about your sorrow (see post above) if you have expected to use God's forgiveness as an escape clause just before you die.  One possible test of sincerity of the deathbed confession is this; if you somehow don't die (e.g. the Governor pardons you), will you change your life?


How do Jehovah Witnesses come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a force? If it has been long recognized that three primary attributes of personality are mind, emotion and will. In my mind tho following verses indicate the Holy Spirit fulfills these basic attributes:

Corinthians 2:10 states it searches all things.
1 Corinthians 2:11 says it knows the thoughts of God
Romans 8:27 says God knows the mind of the spirit.

Yet somehow Johavahs Witnesses come to a rather different conclusion. Their Watch Tower publications consistently refers to him as an abstract force. How do they justify this belief, specifically in light of the above Scriptures and definition?

There are multiple supporting reasons Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Spirit is a force, rather than a person. Some are circumstantial in nature; others are more direct.

Definition This is a natural meaning of "spirit". Is the spirit of happiness a thinking entity? No. It's "the activating or essential principle influencing a person" (Merriam-Webster). Likewise, the spirit of God is the force, or activating principle, of God.

Source references The Greek New Testament only uses the neuter gender when referring to the Holy Spirit: it, not he. Furthermore, there the Spirit is never called by a "personal" name. Both are unlike the personal, masculine references to Jehovah (God the Father) and Jesus (Son of God). Why the differences? Because the Spirit is a thing, not a person.

Man-made Trinity JWs believe Trinitarianism is the product of the human Council of Alexandria and the Council of Constantinople. This isn't a direct reason to believe the Spirit is abstract per se, but it is a reason to distrust the common interpretation of God, which for mainstream Christianity differs little from these flawed councils.

Nature The Spirit is often referred to as a substance.

I shall have to take away some of the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them.
Numbers 11:17
After that I will pour out my spirit on every sort of flesh, And your sons and your daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, And your young men will see visions.
Joel 2:28

When have you ever heard anyone being divided in parts amongst people or poured on them? It's more akin to a substance than a person.

Consistent with human "spirits" Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe humans have a literal spirit or soul independent of a physical body. Our spirit is our life(force), not a ghost. If you believe that human spirits are abstract, it's easier to believe that God's spirit is likewise abstract. See "Soul" and "Spirit" for reasons for this belief about human spirits.

In relation to the scriptures you mentioned, JWs will point out

Personification

True wisdom itself keeps crying out in the very street.
Proverbs 1:20
...your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground
Genesis 4:10

Neither Abel's blood as it lay on the ground nor wisdom in the street actually made any sounds. Nor were they any sense a "person".

There are dozens upon dozens of such personifications in the Bible, including the three you mentioned. Using them to imbue every abstract concept like these with life would be inappropriate.


How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil? I think it's pretty universally accepted that God is wholly good.  Indeed, many sources, including lots of answers on this website, are based on the belief that God is the perfect standard of goodness.  God is also widely believed to hate evil, hence why transgression from His perfect standard of goodness (sin) is taken so seriously and required such amazing grace to save His people.
However, in church this morning we were looking through 1 Samuel 16 and verse 14 alarmed me somewhat:

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. (NIV)

I would never have believed that an evil/harmful spirit could be from God had I not seen it in the bible.  On further investigation, it appears there are several other examples in the bible of God purposefully bringing evil things into the world.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJV)
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?  Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (KJV)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie (NKJV)

I'd always been told that God may allow us to be exposed to evil but doesn't bring it upon us Himself.  This is clearly false in light of the above.  It's therefore also possible that evil is God's will, which is particularly disappointing and devastating to one's faith.
Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?

The question I will try to answer is:

Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?

I will attempt to explain this from the point of Original Sin. This is becuse I myself struggled to understand this for some time and found that this can be explained better from that point of time.

It is difficult to understand the mind of God and we as humans are definetly far short of knowing His wisdom. Over the time, God has made himself known to mankind in various ways and but it is through Jesus that He demostrated His Kindness and His love towards His creation.

From the very beginning, man held a special and unique place in God’s creation as he was created "in the image of God". In his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds.

God’s gift of free will.

God created Adam and Eve with unique characteristics called free will and gave them a choice: to obey Him or disobey Him which is same as choosing good or evil.

God is a personal being and the greatest passion of personal beings is the desire for personal relationships with other personal beings. Therefore, God, as a personal being, created us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. Nevertheless, this had a severe price.

I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to, not to love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity and meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Without that choice, man would have been like puppets, able to do only what God wanted.

God therefore wanted to demonstrate his glory through humans, which had their own free will. When he receives the glory and obedience from humans in spite of having with them the free will, it is an immense satisfaction for Him. God expects that his most important creature would give greater glory to Him by remaining obedient, in spite of having free will with them.

But why God created evil?

God did not create evil as nothing evil can come from good God. Satan and other demons were at first good angels, created by God, but they became evil by their own doing. This "fall" also came from the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. Their aspiration was to become like God, which is reflected in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God." It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. So we see that evil is a side effect of existence of free will and choice.

There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.

The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything, God works for good with those who love him."

Why then did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will and evil would be so disastrous?

Many questions comes to mind at this stage. Questions like Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?"

Why an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil? Since the implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world.

A truly loving God, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have.

Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant.
Answer is bit difficule as I have mentioned at the begining as we do not have the intellect to understand the almighty God. But a simple story I read comes close to explaining this mystery:

Suppose a mother had three children and one of them died. If you could go back to the time before she had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would she attempt to have children?"

A mother would definitely say yes. Because, the love and the joy and the happiness that parents received from their children, far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery they experienced from the loss of that one child.

In this there is an incredible insight as to why God allows free will and evil to exist. A loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist, since in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs.

Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin.

But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience, would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. The consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!

The moment evil is taken out from this world you also remove the choice from the nature of human. The existence of evil is the "side effect" of creating a world with a thirst for love.

A world possessing both evil and love, is far superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.

On the other hand, there is another question. Is God a "limiting God" and not omnipotent?

This is based on flawed logic. It's the same logic flaw atheists use when they say, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" There are logical impossibilities and there are things God cannot do. (Lie, be wrong, learn, sin)

Finally, we come to the first instance of Adam’s disobedience to His creator. What is The tree of the knowledge, and why does God put it in the garden?

It seems like putting your children in the backyard to play and saying, "By the way, don't jump in the pit with the spikes lining the bottom that I dug in the back corner by the swing set, okay?"
God was giving a simple message to man: "Evil" is the things that you're not supposed to do, "good" is the things that you should do. The only thing you need to know about "evil" is don't eat from that tree.

Adam was in the state of original holiness whence he was not able to differentiate between good and evil for he was yet to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam is not able to differentiate between good and evil for his nature was such that he was not in a position to recognise the difference. It is like a computer, which is unable to recognise a PDF format of a file unless an adobe reader is installed on it. The computer knows that PDF file exists but will not execute it, because it does not have that capacity to recognise it. Adam knew that evil exists but he is neither able to recognise it nor he was able to execute it. Under these circumstances, neither God wants that Adam should know about the good and evil by forbidding him from eating that fruit and continue in his present state.

For this, he has to only obey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree. But here also there is a glitch, because there was no way Adam could exercise his free will, in absence of his knowledge about good and evil and show his obedience to God. The only way God could know the obedience of Adam was to tell Adam not to eat from this tree, which would allow Him to know the free will choice of Adam about his obedience to Him.

As a consequence of free will, God kept the CD containing the programme “Adobe Reader” (tree of knowledge) in the garden which will enable Adam to recognise the PDF file format (good and evil) and also allow him to execute the file with PDF extension. There are two aspects here. First – till the time Adam obeys God’s command and do not eat from this tree, he will exercise his free will and be obedient to God. Till that time this programme was not installed on Adam, he would not be able to read and execute this file (evil). The moment Adam disobeys God, Adam will exercise his free will and this programme will be installed on Adam and will recognise the good and evil as well as able to execute it (evil) also.

Before the fall, they were having a nature that made them to do only the good and the power to do evil was beyond their area of understanding. This understanding and the change of their nature would come only when they disobey God and eat the fruit from forbidden tree. With this, one obedience Adam was supposed to live a life doing everything good and not knowing or doing evil.  The obedience would have kept him barricaded from being dying.

Sources: Many and few of them are
www.y-jesus.com/

www.gotquestions.org/

www.khouse.org/

www.newadvent.org/bible/

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
PS. My apologies for this answer being so lenghty but I could not make it any more shorter, though I tried.


What are the Spiritual Gifts? People often talk about spiritual gifts, like tongues and prophecy. What spiritual gifts are mentioned in the Bible? Please provide references.

Wikipedia has a decent article on this subject. There are a few places in the Bible where lists of spiritual gifts occur, which are, according to Wikipedia, as follows:

Romans 12:6-8:

Prophecy
Serving
Teaching
Exhortation
Giving
Leadership
Mercy

1 Corinthians 12:8-10:

Word of wisdom
Word of knowledge
Faith
Gifts of healings
Miracles
Prophecy
Distinguishing between spirits
Tongues
Interpretation of tongues

1 Corinthians 12:28:

Apostle
Prophet
Teacher
Miracles
Kinds of healings
Helps
Administration
Tongues

Ephesians 4:11:

Apostle
Prophet
Evangelist
Pastor
Teacher

Note that Wikipedia lists those last two as one entry: Pastor-teacher - but they are more commonly listed as separate items.

1 Peter 4:11:

Whoever speaks
Whoever renders service

It could be argued that not all of these are spiritual gifts - some might be better referred to as roles or activities; also different versions of the Bible will use slightly different wording for some of these so it's important to look into the context and meaning of the relevant passages.

In addition, there are other places in the Bible where spiritual gifts are mentioned, but not necessarily as part of a list. A good example is this:

  Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of
  Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him
  with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with
  knowledge and with all kinds of skills— to make artistic designs for
  work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in
  wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts.

--Exodus 31:1-5 (NIV)

And then there are other gifts, in such as abilities, talents and more (a good example being someone who is musically gifted); it's next to impossible to really give a definitive list because:

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

-- James 1:17 (NIV)


Do all Catholic seminary schools require instruction in Latin and/or Greek? My son has shown an interest in the priesthood. He seems to have the right psychosexual and behavioral characteristics. Among other reasons, notably, he has no interest in physically intimate relationships (with either men or women, a psychological phenomenon associated with schizoid personality - not a derogatory term); and he has the strongest sense of right or wrong of most anybody I've ever known, including either of his parents. A gift of the Spirit, if you will.

However, since grammar school he has had an IEP (Individual Education Plan, a learning disability) in language acquisition. Schools at all levels have waived his foreign language requirements. He works so hard, but English is tough enough. He excels at other subjects.

All seminary schools I've looked at in the US promote, and it appears to me require, language instruction in Latin and Greek. This seems a practical impossibility for him.

I know there are priests and educators on this site. Does anyone know if such languages are required (in the US)? Would having an IEP make a difference? Are other countries different? (It seems to me granting Presbyter status through a Holy Order in a developing region would not involve such a requirement.)

Not all Catholic seminaries require their seminarians to learn Latin unfortunately. Greek is often an elective in many seminaries. If a seminarian is studying from the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, then yes. The traditional  Mass is said in Latin and a working knowledge of the Latin language is necessary.

  More and more, younger priests are requesting more Latin in the seminaries.  Chant is popular, and there's reams of it in the Graduale Romanum - in Latin.  Architecture of chapels employs Latin in most classical schema.  Biblical studies require Latin.  Studying many Latin Church Fathers requires Latin.  One cannot, for example, fully read Aquinas without sometimes turning to the Latin.  Latin is not going away any time soon. - Do Catholic seminarians still learn Latin?

In any case Latin is required to be taught in Catholic seminaries according to Church Law.

  Fr. Daniel Gallagher, a colleague here at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has just published a fine essay on the importance of Latin training for men preparing for priesthood. Of course, I think that anything promoting Latin, and anything by Fr. Gallagher, warrants reading, but among the many excellent points made about the importance of Latin competence was Fr. Dan's highlighting of 1983 CIC 249, which calls for proficiency in Latin among those seeking ordination, as well as competence in other pastorally useful languages. Nice use of canon law by a non-canonist.

I personally know of Catholic seminaries that do not teach Latin at all, yet will offer Greek to their students as an elective!

For those having a hard time with languages perhaps it would be fitting to invoke the aid of St. John Vianney who had a very hard time learning his Lain.


How prominent was "prosperity theology" in the early church? Prosperity theology, or the "health and wealth gospel," is a recent movement that teaches that God promises material blessings, in this life, to those who have faith in him and who do his will.  Wikipedia traces its origin to the 19th century, but while researching the subject, I found Augustine apparently addressing something similar in a sermon on shepherding:

  But what sort of shepherds are they who for fear of giving offence not only fail to prepare the sheep for the temptations that threaten, but even promise them worldly happiness? God himself made no such promise to this world. [...]

  For the Apostle says: All who desire to live a holy life in Christ will suffer persecution. [...] You say instead: “If you live a holy life in Christ, all good things will be yours in abundance." (LotH, 1010)

This looks like indirect evidence that even around the year 400, Augustine was dealing with teachings similar to those of today's prosperity theology.  Thus I'd like to know:

Is there any surviving direct evidence of these sorts of teachings in the early church?

I.e., surviving writings that actually teach this, as opposed to secondhand accounts

How much indirect evidence is there?
Can we tell how popular these teachings were, and when they gained traction?

I am interested in material after the apostolic age, up to the end of Augustine's life (AD 430).  I know it's somewhat anachronistic to apply the term "prosperity theology" to writings 1500 years older than the movement by that name, but to help clarify what I'm looking for, here's an example, followed by two counter-examples:

God promises1 material2 blessings, in this life,3 to those who have faith in him and live holy lives

This is an example of what I'm looking for; note the three marked elements

God promises blessings to those who have faith in him

Not an example; blessings may be spiritual or material and may not be in this life

God [generally] blesses those who live holy lives

Not an example; this is a proverb, not a promise

Your question is interesting and it is something that I have talked about a lot Since I was part of that movement in the early 90s and left it only to eventually begin studying Early Church history and theology later.    It is very difficult (possibly impossible) to find anything like the Faith and Prosperity Movement in the Early Church.    While the Early Church did believe in miracles and the supernatural, they had a much different attitude when it came to the lifestyle and compensation of ministers.    Here are a few examples and points to support my thesis.

1A) In 1 Corinthians 9: 1-14, saint Paul argues for the right of apostles and other preachers of the Gospel to make a basic living off of preaching the Gospel (They should have their basic needs met, they should be able to support a spouse to travel with them).    1 Cor 9: 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?

1B) Prosperity Preachers take a stronger stance.  They tend to cite the fact that there are wealthy believers in the Bible, people like Abraham and point to the notion that “God wants to bless you” and that “It is possible to be spiritual and wealthy”.

Frederick K.C. Price
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us. . . .How did God bless Abraham? With cattle, gold, manservants, maidservants, camels, and asses. Abraham was blessed materially.”13

2A) The Early Church believed in the positive role of suffering.

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Colossians 1:24 ►
 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

2B) Word of Faith and Prosperity teachers frequently preach on God’s willingness to bless, heal and take us away from the trials and suffering inflicted by Satan and his minions.

3)  The Didache also provides concrete evidence that Early church position regarding ministerial compensation was at odds with the Faith and Prosperity movement.   Besides that it also provides evidence against using revelatory “Words” to motivate offerings (as is often done by such preachers).

Didache, Chapter 11
“…Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.”
“….And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.”


What is the biblical/logical basis for rejecting the "physical" interpretation of Christ's being the Only Begotten Son? Is there any verse in the Bible or a logical construction disproving the "physical" position on Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?

I had a conversation with a Mormon and he told me that Lucifer was a brother of Christ. When I referred him to these verses:

  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God
  sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
  him (1 John 4:9, KJV)

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
  (John 3:16, NKJV)

he said that when the Bible says that Christ is the Only Begotten Son, it must be understood in terms of His physical birth, however both Lucifer and Christ had been born of God spiritually even prior to Christ's physical birth.

Christ is God's begotten son, which to relate it to human terms means he was born of God.

Lucifer, on the other hand, is a fallen angel who was created by God as were the other angels, just as man was.

  Colossians 1:15-17 NIV
  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
  creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and
  on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers
  or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
  17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

These verses tell us that Christ was the firstborn, and all things were created through him.  This includes all things in heaven such as the angels.