Is LDS baptism considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church? Mormons use a Trinitarian formula when baptizing [cf. D&C 20:73]. Yet I've heard that the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid.

When, what, and from whom was the authoritative response to the question of the validity of baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What was the reasoning behind the response?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a very very brief document on the subject in 2001. The entire text of the English translation is:

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.
Response: Negative.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.
From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

The Congregation did also issue a brief commentary on the decision, written by Father Luis Ladaria. In it, Father Ladaria explained that the issue was largely not because of the wording of the baptismal formula, but because of the theology behind it. In his words,

The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. ...  God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning.

Father Ladaria admits that "doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism ... because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ"; but a valid baptism, in the Church's eyes, requires "the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants". Since by "Christ" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints means something quite different than what the Catholic Church means:

The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13)

it follows that the baptism conferred by this community is not a valid baptism.


How many languages has the King James Version been translated into? Yes, that's what I mean. Please read before downvoting.

Our sister site hosted this question, which tells us that Winston Churchill said the King James Version of the Bible had been translated into 760 languages.

Now this makes some people snigger, since they know that the Bible wasn't written in English and the KJV is an English translation of the original languages.

But was he wrong? It seems likely to me that an English-speaking missionary of a hundred years ago, going to an unreached culture and wanting to provide a Bible in their language, would be most likely to have taken the English Bible they had (probably the KJV) and translated it, rather than starting with the original Hebrew and Greek.

So my actual questions:

Was it indeed normal practice 100 years ago for English speaking Bible translators in the field to start from the English Bible? Would a typical translator in the field have had a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew or Greek, and access to the Bible in those languages?
Would that Bible usually have been the KJV?
How many Bible translations are likely to have been made by this method? I'm aware that it isn't used now, but when did the change happen, and how many translations would have been made up to that point? I'll include partial translations to be generous to Winston.

In an attempt to obtain a professional answer to this question, I emailed the Trinitarian Bible Society and received the following reply :

  Dear Mr Johnstone,

  Greetings from London. I have never found a valid list or count of translations made strictly from the Authorised (King James) Version. Many people believe that the AV has been translated into multiple languages because of the similarity between it and other translations. However, any translation that is made from the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text using formal translation principles is going to be very similar to the AV simply because they share these same attributes. In addition, many translations do not state their sources, and some will claim a primary source when that was actually a secondary source—for instance, some claim to be taken from the Greek but instead are translations of an English or other language text using the Greek only as an alternative.

  All the best,

  Debra

  Debra E. Anderson, Ph.D.

  Senior Editor

I fully appreciate this is not a full answer but it seems to me that it is the best answer that anyone is going to be able to give us.


What are the reasons for calling oneself a "follower of Jesus" rather than a Christian? In the last several years, I've noticed a trend of people who reject the label "Christian," and instead prefer to use terms like "Christ follower" or "follower of Jesus." (Not to be confused with people who just follow the jesus tag on SE).

What is the impetus behind this relabelling, and is there historical or scriptural justification for this?

Not really sure it is enough for an answer, but feels too long for a comment; as with here, it primarily seems to be people who feel that the label "Christian", regardless of it's origin and literal meaning, has too many associations (perhaps more in the people they interact with than themselves).

As an example, there are phrases often used in media and politics such as "Christian values", "the Christian thing to do", "the Christian view", etc. As is demonstrated daily on this site, there is no such thing as a single definition of "Christian values", or "the Christian thing to do" - it is a huuuuuuuuuge spectrum.

Hence my interpretation of this is that these people are believers who are very happy to follow the teachings of Christ, but for whom the term "Christian" has become loaded; while it represents positive things, the same term is also used on their behalf, and without their consent to (mis?)represent them, or to form assumptions about their view on things simply from the label "Christian", when simply asking them could be more helpful to all parties.

An interesting feature of this, for example, is in politics - where "Lobbyist X" who happens to be Christian, cites some Christian head-count number, and uses that argument to support their case. However, it is not true to say that just because someone is Christian means that they agree with the view being presented by the lobbyist - it is false representation. Without trying to walk head-first into another label, lobbyists using such tactics tend to be trying to push through Christian-right/conservative perspectives. As a current example, some Christian-right folks are currently getting very worked up about the thought of proposed US laws relating to contraception and employer obligations - somewhat ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Christian women have used contraception (this is meant as an example only, so let's not get overly distracted on that).

Labels aside, I doubt you (as someone who is happy to identify as "Christian") would have any important belief differences. In terms of opinion differences - that is entirely the point: you'd need to ask them, as forming an opinion (of either party) merely from the label "Christian" can be very very misleading. As such, though, it seems a little bit implicit that a "follower of Jesus" / "follower of Christ" is probably not overly conservative in their views. The irony here is that avoiding one label ("Christian") seems to imply another ("liberal") - but that might just be me.


Does God feel and appreciate the resiliency of our suffering? First of all, this is not meant to be a personal posting. I just want to know how God feels about the intense suffering of others who really love and care for Him in the midst of their utmost suffering. So this witness to suffering and this posting. I want to know what the Bible says on this topic.

If a person is psychologically ill with 6 different illnesses and has been suffering for over 22 years, went through 3 MRIs, 2 CAT scan, 1 endoscopy, 2 CT scan, 3 ECG, 1 EEG, myriad blood, urine, and stool sample testing, 11 times to emergency section of all the hospitals in the city, have personal problems, housing problems, financial problems, other burning problems, tested all the meds in the pharmaceutical market and current one suits him best but made him intellectually inferior, created concentration problem and lethargic behavior, when he uses subway or bus or any transit system he has intense headache because of his illnesses and he is still upbeat and resilient about it, does God appreciate his honesty and resiliency?

Does God know how much he cares about Him and how much he loves Him that he accepted all these suffering in his life looking at the cross-section of two lumber bars?

He eats healthy and works out every day. Go to the doctor's office every week. Go to therapy sessions. He is trying hard to harder to hardest after every single new day to get better. He doesn't care if God will return his health, wealth, life and job back like Job in the Bible, but this he knows he loves God very much. He loves Him so much that still he laughs and smiles amid his intense pain, suffering, and torment. He doesn't feel miserable or asks for pity at all.

Instead, I want to know where in the Bible it has been stated that God feels the suffering of that man like that distressed man does and appreciates his strong resiliency against all the vice in his life?

“We are hard-pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8–9)

St. Paul It is in our suffering that we find strength.

To experience suffering is to configure one's self to / with Christ

  ... already in the act of Baptism, which brings about a configuration with Christ, and then through his Sacrifice...the Church is continually being built up spiritually as the Body of Christ. In this Body, Christ wishes to be united with every individual, and in a special way he is united with those who suffer.  (Salvifici Doloris, 24)

While this answer begins with what I was taught by a Catholic deacon some years ago, on a more biblical basis you will find in Collosians a complete embracing of suffering

1 Collosians 23, 24,

  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

One of the themes that the Catholics teach is that our suffering configures us with Christ, who suffered on the Cross for all of our sins.  There is an extended meditation here in Salvifici Doloris covering the Christian meaning of human suffering.  Pope St. John Paul II observes that

  ... we recall the truth expressed in the Encyclical Redemptor
  Hominis: in Christ "every man becomes the way for the Church." It can
  be said that man in a special fashion becomes the way for the Church
  when suffering enters his life. This happens, as we know, at different
  moments in life, it takes place in different ways, it assumes
  different dimensions; nevertheless, in whatever form, suffering seems
  to be, and is, almost inseparable from man's earthly existence.

That's one take of many on the topic of suffering.

You ask "does God feel and appreciate the resiliency of our suffering?"

I answer: Yes.   God is with us always.

John 14: 16- 17 (NAB)

  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to
  be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot
  accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because
  it remains with you, and will be in you.

Under the basis of the trinitarian Godhead, the Son felt mankind's suffering on the Cross. Because the Father and the Son are one -
John 10: 30

  The Father and I are one."

... God knows what Jesus feels, what Jesus felt.

What about appreciating the resiliency of our suffering?

The Holy Spirit is sent to us from God to be with us always(see above). Beyond God knowing of our suffering (God knows all) and appreciating our suffering (through the person of Christ and the Cross) the appreciation by God of our suffering is a Christian belief that goes back to the early church; the original Saints were martyrs for Christ.

This Christian belief, that the saints of the early church, most of whom were Martyrs for the Church (just as Christ was martyred for all of us) and thereby earned the reward of Heaven shows but one example of God appreciating the suffering of individuals.  (There have been entire books written on this topic).

From a contemporary Christian point of view ...

... the answer remains Yes.  There is a well known poem: Footprints in the Sand by Margaret Fishback Powers

  “One night I dreamed a dream. As I was walking along the beach with my
  Lord. Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life. For each scene,
  I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand, One belonging to me and
  one to my Lord.

  After the last scene of my life flashed before me, I looked back at
  the footprints in the sand. I noticed that at many times along the
  path of my life, especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
  there was only one set of footprints.

  This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it. “Lord, you said
  once I decided to follow you, You’d walk with me all the way. But I
  noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
  there was only one set of footprints. I don’t understand why, when I
  needed You the most, You would leave me.”

  He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
  Never, ever, during your trials and testings. When you saw only one
  set of footprints, It was then that I carried you.”

The message here is clear: the personal connection with Christ, who cares for us regardless of our condition, and is another perspective on how God will be with us always.   He doesn't just appreciate our suffering, He's there to help when we suffer.  That message is pretty clear across multiple Christian denominations.

Another excerpt from that extended meditation on suffering

  The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his
  own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that
  suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called
  to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also
  been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering,
  Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption.
  Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the
  redemptive suffering of Christ.


What is the Catholic belief concerning Deuteronomy 24:16 While preparing for a lesson this Sunday I came across Deuteronomy 24:16.

(KJV) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
(D-R) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

This piqued my interest, so I looked into the Catholic Catechism.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

Does Deut. 24:16 suggest that no one but Adam and Eve can be held responsible for their action? or are children considered sinful at birth? or is baptism in Catholocism seen as something more pre-emptive than the immediate cleansing of past actions as other churches believe?  How does the Catholic Church reconsile Catechism 1250 with Deut. 24:16?

Baptism is considered by the Catholic Church to be a cleansing not only of personal sin ("past actions", as you put it) but also original sin. Original sin, confusingly, is not "really" a sin. That is, it's not a sin in the same sense that adultery (for example) is a sin. It is a change in human nature that was brought on by the first sin, which has effects persisting for all humans:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 405)

Children are not seen as sinful at birth. Indeed, since sin is the result of a voluntary action, word, or thought, it is not possible for a child to sin until they are (as the saying goes) "old enough to know better". (The Church generally takes this to be about six or seven years old.)
Baptism, among other things, allows a person to be justified before God, and to receive again the strength to pursue holiness which original sin deprives us of. It also cleanses us of any previous personal sins we've committed.
Adam and Eve are the only ones responsible for their actions (and thus the passage from Deuteronomy applies to them, in that we are not condemned for what they did); but on the other hand, their actions changed human nature in such a way that it is, generally speaking, impossible for us not to be sinful to some extent. Thus, it is in a sense because of their actions that we can be sinful; but any condemnation that comes on us is because of our actual choices, not because of that first sin.


What is the history of silent prayer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is much in the way of Biblical or early-church precedence for praying silently.  It seems like prayers were generally spoken aloud.  In modern times, especially in evangelical circles, it seems that silent prayer is widely accepted and commonplace.  So my question is, when did it become a normal thing?  Was there some specific person or writing which significantly swayed popular opinion, or did it just happen organically over time?

There is indeed much evidence that silent prayer was taught and practiced in the early church. Several examples from the first few centuries will demonstrate this:
Clement of Alexandria (150–215) writes:

Prayer is, then, to speak more boldly, converse with God. Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips, we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly. For God hears continually all the inward converse. (Stromata, 7.7)

Cyprian (200–258) writes regarding Hannah:

she prayed to God not with clamorous petition, but silently and modestly, within the very recesses of her heart. She spoke with hidden prayer, but with manifest faith. She spoke not with her voice, but with her heart, because she knew that thus God hears; and she effectually obtained what she sought, because she asked it with belief.  (Lord's Prayer, 5)

As far as the prevalence of the practice, this is a bit more difficult to confirm, but we do know that Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386) commanded it of women in his catechetical lectures:

let the married woman also [...] pray; and let her lips move, but her voice be unheard

It's also specifically commanded in the canons of the Council of Laodicea (363):

After the sermons of the Bishops [...] there should then be offered the three prayers of the faithful, the first to be said entirely in silence, the second and third aloud

Similarly, in the Apostolic Constitutions (380), Book 2, Section 7:

After this let the sacrifice follow, the people standing, and praying silently

Summary
It's tough to demonstrate exactly how common the practice was among individual Christians in the early church, given the documentary record that has survived. But the record clearly shows, particularly the last two documents cited above, that silent prayer was widespread in Christian churches by the 4th century, if not earlier.


Is there an established concensus meaning of Vicarious Atonement? The term "Vicarious Atonement" is often used to refer to, or to something described as similar to, Penal Substitution or other understandings of Substitutionary atonement:

  The phrase 'vicarious atonement' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'penal substitution', and is also sometimes used to describe other, non-penal substitutionary, theories of atonement. [Wikipedia]

Is there an established definition of Vicarious Atonement, either as its own model or as another model, or is it simply a descriptive term sometimes used in relation to other model(s) when they involve Christ "Vicariously" doing anything for us?

For example, if I were to use the term as a description for a new model of atonement, would it cause confusion or be rejected because the term is "claimed" definitively as something else?

Or, another example, if I used the term by itself in an article would Christian theologians consistently understand it in a particular way?

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement does indeed rely heavily on the idea that Christ's death was vicarious, and thus sometimes vicarious atonement is closely associated with penal substitution.  However, the adjective vicarious is applied to other theories as well, by both advocates and detractors of penal substitution.  Thus, without context, the phrase vicarious atonement is ambiguous because it is frequently used to refer to several distinct theories of atonement.
Vicarious according to proponents of penal substitution
Proponents of penal substitution argue that Christ's death was vicarious, but recognize that they must narrowly define the sense in which the word is used.  Charles Hodge first provides a broad definition:

[Vicarious], according to its signification and usage, includes the idea of substitution. Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another, i.e., in his place. (ST, v2, 3.6.3)

He then proceeds to argue that Christ's sufferings are vicarious in a particular sense, recognizing that others use the term differently.  Louis Berkhof does the same thing:

The Bible certainly teaches that the sufferings and death of Christ were vicarious, and vicarious in the strict sense of the word that He took the place of sinners, and that their guilt was imputed, and their punishment transferred, to Him. (ST, 3.3.4.A; bold added)

Vicarious in other theories of atonement
Berkhof provides two examples of theologians who oppose penal substitution but employ the word "vicarious" in their definitions.  He disapprovingly quotes Horace Bushnell, a 19th century liberal theologian, who rejects penal substitution in his book entitled Vicarious Sacrifice:

Here then we have the true law of interpretation, when the vicarious relation of Christ to our sins comes into view. It does not mean that he takes them literally upon him, as some of the old theologians and a very few moderns appear to believe; it does not mean that he took their ill desert upon him by some mysterious act of imputation, or had their punishment transferred.  [...] No, but the bearing of our sins does mean, that Christ bore them on his feeling, became inserted into their bad lot by his sympathy as a friend, yielded up himself and his life, even, to an effort of restoring mercy; in a word that he bore our sins in just the same sense that he bore our sicknesses. Understand that love itself is an essentially vicarious principle, and the solution is no longer difficult. [bold added]

The other theory of vicarious atonement that Berkhof mentions is that of "vicarious repentance," of John McLeod Campbell.  Berkhof contrasts it with penal substitution:

This theory, while recognizing the retributive justice of God and the demerit of sin, denies the necessity and possibility of penal substitution, and asserts that the work of Christ in behalf of sinners consisted, not in His suffering for them, but in the vicarious confession of their sins.

Finally, the word vicarious is also sometimes applied to substitutionary atonement more generally.  Reformed theologian Robert Reymond describes Anselm's view this way:

[Anselm] interpreted Christ's death [...] as a vicarious satisfaction (satis, "enough"; facio, "to do") offered to God the Father as the legal representative of the Trinity for the sins of the world. (ST, Appendix D, emphasis in original)

Summary
We have seen that both proponents and opponents of penal substitution apply the word "vicarious" to other theories of atonement than penal substitution:

Bushnell: Christ suffered sympathetically
Campbell: Christ vicariously confessed sin
Anselm: Christ vicariously satisfied God's honor

Thus, it's perhaps best to understand vicarious atonement as a hypernym of penal substitution and these other theories.  Vicarious is a useful adjective, and perhaps most commonly associated with penal substitution, but without context it is insufficient to specify a particular atonement theory.


What is a Sabbath day's walk? In Acts 1:12, the distance between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives is described as a "Sabbath day's walk." Now, my Bible's footnote attributes this distance to be one kilometer long but it gives no indication as to how it got that number.

In the NIV Text Notes that my Bible comes with, it says that a Sabbath day's walk was a distance "drawn from rabbinical reasoning based on several OT passages" and gives a few Old Testament verse references. One reference is to Exodus 16:29, which says

  Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.

So based on this, wouldn't a "Sabbath day's walk" be a total of zero kilometers? Because "no one is to go out" on that day?

Another verse that my Text Note references (and is also referenced by other sources, such as this website) is Joshua 3:4, which, when added to verse two and three says

  After three days the officers went throughout the camp, giving orders to the people: “When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the Levitical priests carrying it, you are to move out from your positions and follow it. Then you will know which way to go, since you have never been this way before. But keep a distance of about two thousand cubits between you and the ark; do not go near it.”

But this is just describing the Israelites crossing the Jordan River, and how much distance they should keep from the Ark of the Covenant? It has nothing to do with the Sabbath or a distance of walking?

So where does the term "a Sabbath's walk" come from? And how long is it?

*And if it really does stem from the Joshua reference, why would the rabbis use that verse? How does it make any sense?

The exact value of a "Sabbath day's walk" is 2,000 cubits, which works out to about 5/8 of a mile, or one kilometer.  Commentator Craig S. Keener explains the logic and biblical basis:

  The figures were natural extrapolations from Exod 16:29 (one must not leave one's place on the Sabbath) and Num 35:5 (identifying one's place as 2,000 cubits square) [Acts, v1, p735]

Numbers 35:5 in particular reads:

  And you shall measure, outside the city, on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the middle. This shall belong to them as pastureland for their cities. [ESV]

Keener confirms that the 2,000 cubit figure matches what we know of the geography of Jerusalem.  He also argues that Luke knew this was the value used by the Pharisees, as recorded in later rabbinic tradition, such as the Mishnah:

  On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded [the verse], (Numbers 35:5) "You shall measure outside the city on the eastern outskirts, two thousand cubits..." (Numbers 35:5) [...] , and another verse says (Numbers 35:4) "... from the wall of the city and outward, 1000 cubits around."  [...] One-thousand cubits is for the open land, and two thousand cubits is the Sabbath border [the distance one can travel from the city on Sabbath]." (Mishnah Sotah, 5:3)


According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it? Matthew and Luke each open with an account of Jesus' miraculous virginal conception and birth. The virgin birth is widely seen as an essential belief in Christianity, being found for example in the Apostles' Creed.
Numerous passages in Paul's letters explicate what has been called wisdom Christology, which includes belief in a pre-existent and divine or semi-divine Christ, and he directly references Jesus' birth once. But he never mentions the virgin birth, leading some to claim that he knew of no virgin birth tradition. See for example pages 108–109 of Jesuit priest John McKenzie's book The New Testament Without Illusion:

If Matthew, chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 1, were missing from the New Testament, there would be no biblical mention of the virgin birth. ... Paul, the earliest of the New Testament writers, does not mention the virgin birth, in spite of an excellent opportunity to mention it in Galatians 4:4.
The argument from silence is generally regard as invalid when one deals with documents, unless it can be shown conclusively that the writer could not have omitted the item in question had he known it. This cannot be shown for the virgin birth. But the omission does raise speculations, as I said. The event is unusual enough for one to wonder why an author who knew of it would not mention it; and it seems that those who maintain that Mark, John and Paul knew of the virgin birth owe their readers some explanation why these authors thought it was not important enough to deserve mention.
On the other hand, those (like me) who solve the problem of the silence of all New Testament writers except Matthew and Luke by ay asserting that all the writers except these two never heard of the virgin birth also owe their readers some explanation of the supposed ignorance. This explanation I shall attempt.

How do those who hold that Jesus' mother literally gave birth to him without having had intercourse explain why Paul failed to mention it? What is an overview of their arguments?

The target audience of the writers of the gospels was to people who did not know about or did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. They included the virgin birth story because it was an important part of the narrative. Paul's target audiences, on the other hand, were already Christians and so, presumably, were already aware of the narrative of Christ. There are many other life events Paul did not mention as well.


On which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded? I read that Leslie Dixon Weatherhead, an English Christian theologian, made every effort to present Mary as a very pure, sincere, immature, young maiden who simply had interpreted the Angel's Annunciation as a divine instruction to stay for three months with her cousin's husband, Zechariah, and that was when Jesus was conceived.

Then, excluding the case that Leslie was either a crazy man or an illiterate man, which doesn't seem true, on which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?

Rev Dr Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) was a Methodist minister and a very popular preacher in London from the 1930's to the 1960's, in a liberal Protestant tradition. He was also a prolific and popular author.

There is a new and helpful article on Wikipedia (posted in September 2014) about Leslie Weatherhead. It has a full bibliography.

Weatherhead's speculative theory about the conception of Jesus Christ was published in his book "The Christian Agnostic", (published in London in 1965, and also in the Abingdon Classics series) based on his rather loose interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1 and 2.

Weatherhead has a small and ageing following in the UK, not significant in the leadership of the Methodist Church.


Do Christians treat Friday as special? Do Christians in general treat Friday as a special day, perhaps with a worship service, prayers or confession? Is it more or less special than Sunday?

If most don't, are there some Christians who do hold Friday as special in some way, perhaps holding worship services on Friday?

For most Christians the most special day of the week is Sunday. It was the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead, and Christians have held a weekly worship service on that day for many centuries. In countries with a Christian heritage Sunday is a day off to allow Christians to celebrate.
While Sunday is normally the day of worship, many Christians believe it to be a matter of tradition rather than a requirement of God. Christians that live in countries where where religious services are usually held on another day, such as Saturday in Jewish countries or Friday for Islamic countries, will often hold services on those days because it is easier to attend. ("On that day" may mean "the evening before" in countries where the traditional day runs from sundown to sundown).
One church that treats Friday specially is the Roman Catholic church. Friday is a special fast day, on which people abstain from meat. Canon law says:

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Other denominations like Anglicans and Methodists do similar. See Friday Fast.


What does Romans 13:13-14 mean by "behave decently, as in the daytime"? In Romans 13:13-14 NIV we read

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

People sin in daytime as well as night-time, so in what sense is "daytime" being used here?

Jesus and others in the Bible have used day and night figuratively. In general, light and day refer to positive aspects of a believer's relationship with God while darkness and night refer to more sinful aspects.

For instance, in John 3:19-21, we read,

  19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people
  loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20
  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the
  light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives
  by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that
  what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

The light in this case is God sending Jesus into the world to save us, and especially to make us aware of that need. The darkness here is that part within us that prefers to hide from God's truth about our sinful state rather than have our sins exposed and forgiven. But "whoever lives by the truth," that is, he who is honest with himself about his shortcomings and recognizes the need for God's remedy, comes to the light -- comes to the need for faith in Jesus and forgiveness.

Darkness refers to the "shady dealings" of mankind, where people will do what's wrong secretly in order not to be found out and accused. Being people "of the day" (1 Thess. 5:5) means to be bold and open in one's conduct, unafraid because it is right and honest and good.


The unicorn as a Christological figure This isn't so much a question about theology or denominational teachings as Church history.

In an answer to a question on another StackExchange site, someone posted this:

  I am an Art Historian, and I have recently made a research on the
  Unicorn symbology in the Middle Ages Art. The unicorn is an
  christological symbol. In the book physiologus (popular book in the
  middle ages about magical creatures and so on) the unicorn is
  described as hard to capture. Only a virgin could do this. This
  unicorn myth has been used as a symbol (incarnation) of Christ, who
  has been born by the virgin Mary.

That got my interest, so I searched, and there is some apparent truth to this, and some undocumented statements claim that some monks agreed with this.

For example, from: Christological Figure

  ...the unicorn in medieval bestiaries, which would lie down and place
  its phallic, ivory-horned meekly in a maiden's lap so that hunters
  might kill it--which medieval monks interpreted as an allegory of
  Christ allowing himself to enter the womb of the virgin Mary so that
  he might later be sacrificed.

So I'm curious to see if there is documented writings from the Church (I assume this refers to the Catholic Church, or possibly Orthodox or the Church of England, based on the time period) discussing this.  Is there history to back up these claims?

Yes, this is one of many allegorical meanings attributed to the unicorn. Sometimes it seems that just about every possible meaning is attached to every possible creature, in the medieval mind. The unicorn's main associations are:

power, as with any horned creature.
purity: the horn was believed to have the power to magically purify water, counteract poison, and cure diseases.
divine intervention, as the horn suggests divine power reaching, penetrating or transforming the mundane horse - resembling a ray of light striking the horse's forehead.

Much of this comes from classical sources, such as the Natural History of Pliny, which were familiar to Christians. Additionally, there are possible unicorn-references in the Bible which can be made to fit with these classical ideas. Saint Basil the Great makes this connection, for example in Homilies on the Psalms 13.5 (commenting on Psalm 92:10):

  On the whole, since it is possible to find the word 'horn' used by Scripture in many places instead of 'glory', as the saying 'He will exalt the horn of his people' (Ps 148:14) and 'His horn shall be exalted in glory' (Ps 112:9), or also, since the 'horn' is frequently used instead of 'power', as the saying 'My protector and the horn of my salvation', Christ is the power of God; therefore, he is called the Unicorn on the ground that he has one horn, that is, one common power with the Father.

Other writers to link Christ to the unicorn include Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem 3.18, Adversus Judaeos) and Ambrose. The specific interpretation involving Mary's virginity and the conception of Jesus comes about a bit later, influenced by the Physiologus that you mention, an allegorical bestiary written at some point between the second and fourth centuries, and containing the legend of how the fierce and wild unicorn can be tamed only by a virgin (chapter 36). This, and subsequent bestiaries, developed a more elaborate version of the imagery. By the fifteenth century it could include Gabriel as a hunter who blows his horn to drive the unicorn into an enclosed garden (hortus conclusus) representing Mary's virgin womb. This is a merging of two separate artistic traditions - the unicorn hunt and the secret garden.

The dense web of symbolism is rather difficult to unpick. Because these traditions are essentially mystical, there are many things simultaneously represented or suggested. And so the purifying nature of the unicorn horn may be connected to Mary's virginity, Christ's purity, his purifying of the world, and even the transformative consecration of the Eucharist. The hunted unicorn may sometimes stand for Christ's death at the hands of his persecutors (Das Buch der Natur, Konrad von Megenberg, 14th century; Bestiaire Divine, Guillaume le Clerc, c.1210-1211). Or it may refer to (secular) courtly love as the powerful knight-unicorn chooses to submit to a virtuous and virginal lady.

This extravagance did not last, however. It was a source of mounting embarrassment that Christ was being represented by a creature whose existence was doubtful, and of course all this sort of imagery was unacceptable to the Reformation leaders. Within Catholicism, the last session of the Council of Trent (1563) passed a decree against superstitious or unseemly images, also ensuring that bishops would have the authority to suppress anything that was confusing, unusual, or tending to excite lascivious thoughts. This was backed up by detailed expert guidance in the following years, such as the De picturis et imaginibus sacris of Molanus (1570). He allows the hortus conclusus (but without a unicorn) for Mary, as well as other scripturally-supported imagery, such as the lily among the thistles or the city of God, but generally rejects more fanciful allegories and non-Biblical legends. And so unicorn-imagery gradually died out.

References:

The Unicorn Tapestries, Adolph S. Cavallo. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998.
The Unicorn, Lise Gotfredsen. Abbeville Press, 1999.


How did people know that their visions of God were not false before the Bible was as a book compiled? I looked at many Christian apologist websites, like GotQuestions, which states that anybody who claims to see God can have their claims evaluated by Scripture. So far so good, but how would people like Abraham know that their visions of God were real and that they were not deceived if they didn't have the complete edition of the Scripture?

The first means is fulfilled prophecy.

Methusaleh's name was a prophecy: it means "When he dies, it will come". The year he died, the flood of Noah arrived.
God told Abraham that he would have a son. Twenty-five years later, he did.
Elihu announced the coming of God to Job, and God came.
Job uttered at least two dozen prophecies, which ultimately came true.
Joseph had dreams, interpreted them correctly, and the events came to pass.
Moses asked God for a sign that he would succeed in rescuing his people from Egypt:

  12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you
  that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out
  of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.” (Exodus 3:12)

The second means is miracles.

Enoch did not die, but was taken up into heaven
The wombs of all the women in Pharaoh's household were first shut, then opened because of how he treated Abraham
The plagues against Egypt certified what God told Moses
Job's healing and the restoration of his fortune and long life certified what God told Job

The third means is righteous character and loyalty to God in the midst of suffering and persecution:

Joseph refused to sleep with his master's wife while a slave.
Job was already a righteous man, yet when he suffered, he did not curse God.
Lot maintained his character and hospitality though surrounded by a completely wicked culture.
Abraham refused to accept the spoils of war from the unrighteous kings he was forced to ally himself with.

A consistent message, regardless of the medium of communication emplyed by God. In my study of Job, I counted thirteen different means of communication employed by Job and God to communicate with one another, and the different pieces assembled from all those means fit together harmoniously.
Faith in God despite impossible circumstances.

Abraham waiting all those years for a son, then being asked to sacrifice him
Jacob, enduring years of false dealing by his uncle Laban
Joseph in prison, believing God would set him free
Job, on the verge of death, believing that God will raise him from the dead
Moses before Pharaoh, believing God would set his people free

The Holy Spirit. The Spirit grants wisdom and many other gifts. When a life displays that fruit, it is persuasive.


Did Jesus heal a person with a chromosome defect? Is there anywhere in the bible a hint or something saying Jesus healing someone with a chromosome defect? For example somebody with a Down Syndrome or similar.

What about today's healings? Was it ever recorded a Down Syndrome person miraculously healed?

If not what is the explanation for why this type of handicap God doesn't choose to heal? (for this sentence I need a Catholic view).

The Bible was written down about two thousand years ago, when nothing was known about "Chromosome defects". So the Bible writers didn't record whether any of the people Jesus healed had chromosome defects. Nor did they give us enough information to work our for ourselves if they had them.


What "things" is Jesus talking about in Matthew 11:25? I really like this verse but I don't fully grasp what Jesus is talking about in his prayer (specifically 11:25)

The Father Revealed in the Son

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

"Things" is simply Truth, these Truths.

It is better to be humble than proud.
Grace is better than triumph.
That all credit for anything we achieve belongs to God.

Things like that.


How do I verbalize "Lesson: 1 John 4:7-21"? Is it correct to say: "Today's lesson is from the first book of John, Chapter 4, verses 7 through 21"?

The most commonly accepted short form of verbalizing the references for numbered books of the Bible is:

  Today's Bible reading is from first/second/third [book name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

Also common, but frowned upon and even laughed at by some, is:

  Today's Bible reading is from one/two/three [book name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

If it's a numbered Epistle, I prefer to be a little more descriptive for listeners who are not so familiar with the Bible and its books.

For Epistles named for their author (1 & 2 Peter; 1, 2, & 3 John):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second/third epistle/letter of [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

For Epistles named for their recipients:

If the recipient is an individual (1 & 2 Timothy):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second epistle/letter to [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

If the recipient is a group (1 & 2 Corinthians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second epistle/letter to the [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.


What is the Biblical basis for "hate the sin, love the sinner"? The expression "hate the sin, love the sinner" gets thrown about in both Christian and non-Christian circles, but it does not seem to be a bible verse.

What Biblical concepts support this popular cliche? And what supports it being applied to men and not just God? Some say "that's the way that Jesus lived". Are there examples of Jesus' conduct that demonstrate this one way or another?

I think "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a very Christian concept.

God hates sin, and in fact he hates sinners.

Romans 9:10-18

  10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

  14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

  “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

  16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

We see here that God chose to hate Esau before he was even born. He chose to harden Pharaoh in Egypt for his own purposes.

However, we do not know who God has elected to save and so we should treat everyone with the love and respect that he has given to us.

Matt 22:37-40 (NIV)

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

We are to love our neighbors (a pretty expansive group, potentially all we come into contact with) as we wish to be loved. This is a huge command. We are to love everyone in our lives as much as we love ourselves (be honest its a lot).

Loving others is our greatest command at this point

Romans 13:8 (NIV)

  8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

God's perfection cannot tolerate sinners. However, we are by no means perfect creatures and have little to no right to render judgement upon a creature god has created. Thus we should live as if each action we take and word we speak are towards each other and those outside of our circles are towards a brother in Christ, because we can not see who God has chosen and who he has not.


Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine? The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the flood seems implausible to me due to this detail. How could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?

First of all I live in the Middle East in the same country as Mt. Ararat where the ark landed. Note this is not in Palestine nor do we know where Noah started from. The problem could just as well have been that he was starting from the Siberian tundra and needed some African wildebeests. You're trying to solve a specific problem that you don't have enough scenario data to build a case for or against.

However back to the plausibility argument. Here in the neighborhood of Mt Ararat there is a zoo here that has penguins. They are kept out of doors and, with the exception of having free access to a small pond, cope with the same baking heat the rest of us deal with. They may not like it but they survive.

Secondly I grew up in the Southwest high desert. The zoo where I grew up had a polar bear exhibit, again out of doors. In more recent years it has acquired some shade and a larger (very fun looking) series of pools but the one I remember as a kid wasn't much more than a concrete box.

As if that wasn't enough to at least cast doubt on the argument against the plausibility of such a thing, let's consider the other implications of the flood.

Hand in hand with the flood come a host of other radical global changes. The arrangement of dry land vs ocean has likely radically changed as tectonic plates rose and fell in order for the water to cover the whole land. How high mountains were, where they were located and even the divides between contents are likely very different.

In the same vein, global climate would have been radically different. Many believe from the Genesis account that there were changes in the atmosphere and that likely post-flood earth has a lot more extremes of hot and cold in different areas than pre-flood earth.

Lastly, it's not always alleged that every variation of species we have today was on the Ark. It's possible a representative of the bear family was all that God required to cover the basis for both polar bears and black bears.

And most importantly, don't you think the God who created the animals in the first place and gives them the instincts that make them what they are could not manipulate the system in a miraculous way to lead a couple of stray bears on a long walk? Similar wild and seemingly impossible journeys by strangely motivated animals have been documented

All in all, the specific allegations you bring up are small items in the big picture. If you really have a problem with the science, you need to start at the other end of the spectrum and work backwards. Those little details sort themselves out in the big picture.


How is "their angels always behold the Father in heaven" a warning? Matthew 18:10

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto
  you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my
  Father which is in heaven.

Jesus was talking about not offending the little ones who believe in Him. Then He gives this cryptic statement as an added incentive to beware.

In what sense is this statement a warning to his disciples? Clicking on the link will give you fuller context of the quote. Any Protestant and Catholic perspective is welcome.

Commentator Albert Barnes has some thoughts. First he points to Hebrews 1:14. The entire verse and his commentary are worth reading but here are some excerpts.

Are they [angels] not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Are they not all - There is not one of them that is elevated to the high rank of the Redeemer. Even the most exalted angel is employed in the comparatively humble office of a ministering spirit appointed to aid the heirs of salvation. "Ministering spirits." A "ministering" spirit is one that is employed to execute the will of God. The proper meaning of the word here - λειτουργικὰ leitourgika - (whence our word "liturgy") is, "pertaining to public service," or "the service of the people" (λαός laos) and is applied particularly to those who were engaged in the public service of the temple. They were those who rendered aid to others; who were helpers, or servants. Such is the meaning as used here. They are employed to render "aid" or "assistance" to others - to wit, to Christians. "Sent forth." Appointed by God for this. They are "sent;" are under his control; are in a subordinate capacity.
...
The following methods of angelic interposition in behalf of man are noted in the Scriptures: (1) They feel a deep interest in man. ... (2) they feel a special interest in all that relates to the redemption of man. ... (3) they appear for the defense and protection of the people of God. ... (4) angels are sent to give us strength to resist temptation. (5) they support us in affliction. ... (6) they attend dying saints, and conduct them to glory.

That's just background. Here's what he says on the verse in question:

Do always behold the face of God - This is taken from the practice of earthly courts. To be admitted to the presence of a king; to be allowed to see his face continually; to have free access to him at all times, was deemed a mark of special favor 1 Kings 10:8; Esther 1:14, and was esteemed a security for his protection. So, says our Saviour, we should not despise the obscurest Christian, for he is ministered to by the highest and noblest of beings by beings who are always enjoying the favor and friendship of God.

The Almighty God is a loving shepherd and merciful father to his little ones, and a general to an army of angels. Cross one of his little ones and you'll endure his wrath.


What does it mean to be an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ? Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

There seems to be a lot implied/assumed in those two verses. I'll try to keep it focused.
What is meant by children of God being "heirs of God"? What does He have to give us besides salvation? If salvation is something to be inherited, then does it mean that God once inherited/was given salvation?
As for being joint-heirs with Christ, does that mean we can obtain the same glory as he has?

In Jewish thinking, being an heir speaks to adoption into a family.  An adoption would make the adopted one legally eligible for an equal share in the father's estate.
Now Jesus was intended to be the firstborn among many brethren:

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

And we believers are adopted into the family of God:

Romans 8:15
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

With all the entitlement to an inheritance in the Kingdom of God that that entails.  As joint-heirs with Christ, we have an equal share with him as Sons and Daughters of the living God.
Now, consider this, in the garden Adam an Eve were created in the image of God, with free access to the tree of life, they would have life forever in perfect communion with God... had they not grasped after God-likeness, seeking equality with God on their own terms.
Now, when talking of the resurrection Paul makes some startling statements:

1 Cor 15:42-49
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

So it is that we will be raised in the image of the risen Christ, incorruptible, immortal, redeemed, with a body like to what we have now, yet as different as that of the risen Lord who walked through locked doors and appeared and disappeared at will.
Interestingly, the Catholic church teaches, quite rightly I think, that we will be divinised with Christ in some mysterious way - "may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity" (words of the mass, and direct teaching of John Paul II).
When the bible speaks of our adoption with Christ, it is speaking of the mystery that is God finally making us like him in a more wonderful and transcendent way after the resurrection than we ever dreamed possible when we grasped after it in the garden.

1 Cor 15:24
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

For what else can be the case in a world where all evil, death and pain is removed but that every evil inclination of mans heart has been removed and we have perfect and eternal communion with the living God?  Not one of us will ever sin again - the idea will never even enter our heart.  Yet we will remain separate persons, but our nature will be so transformed as to be unable to sin.  Now imagine what kind of a nature can it be which can last for all eternity forward never self-seeking, never sinning and never having a single conception of so much as an idea in discord with Almighty God.
That's what it means to be an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ.


Why are some miracles hard to explain and some are not? Here is a related question but they are not the same
Do miracles violate the laws of physics?

Looking at most miracles in the bible, they can be explained based on what we already understand (physics, chemistry, etc) and sometimes they were even explained in the bible. Like in the case of God parting the red sea, the east/west wind had to be strong to drive the water apart and made the children of God passed. There are others like that.

But there are 2 miracles that are difficult for me to explain.

The Shunamite widow pouring out oil from nowhere (2 Kings 4) - Here is an analyses have read but not satisfied: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbajuly97.htm
Jesus feeding 4000/5000 from food that did not exist

I know God is omnipotent and can do all things, but in the case of the Red Sea, we learned how He did it.

My question is, when Jesus had 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, how does breaking them increase them till they could feed 5000 people (I know it's a miracle)

I am even more concerned about the Shunamite woman. Having a jar of oil, and pouring into several jars and could have continue if there were more to fill. How did the oil keep pouring when there was a finite amount inside (diluted with water - I don't think so)

Any answer to this question will be pure speculation - the Bible doesn't say why there are these two "classes" (the question of the existence of said classes I'll leave alone for now), so we don't know.

With that said, here are two potential reasons that are Scripturally based:

God is sovereign over everything, and is pleased to work out his will through his Creation, often utilizing secondary and tertiary causes. The Parting of the Red Sea shows this , and it is no less a miracle because God used one part of his creation to affect another - after all, God created it all in the first place!
God hides things from us. There are things we cannot yet know. While God's power is manifest in the Red Sea, marveling us, his mystery and wisdom are manifest in the feeding of the 5000, keeping us grounded in our own frailty.

That is, God demonstrates different attributes through different miracles that serve different purposes.


When was “pistis christou” first understood as a statement about Christ’s faith? There is an ongoing debate among translators and commentators of Paul’s letters about how to understand the phrase Πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis christou)1 -- “[the] faith[fulness] of Christ" vs. “faith in Christ”. For instance, Gal 2:16:

  εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

  knowing that a man is not justified by works of [the] law but by pisteos iesou christou

The only published translation I’m aware of that chooses the “subjective” reading2 is the NET, which has notes that summarize the decision. Like most bibliographies I’ve found on the topic theirs starts in the late 20th C., with Richard B. Hays’s 1983 publication of The Faith of Jesus Christ (link is second edition) figuring prominently. See also this timeline.

I’m wondering if this interpretation had ever occurred to anyone before the 1970s. Starting from the Greek fathers, many scholars of prior generations likely had keen instincts about Greek, and I’m curious whether they “felt” the ambiguity reflected in our modern debate.

When was the subjective interpretation first suggested?
Did the Greek fathers write anything that would reveal their understanding of this phrase as either subjective or objective?

Notes:

1. The (comprehensive as far as I know) list of pertinent Pauline references, including those with Iesou and/or christou: Rom 3:22, 3:26; Gal 2:16 (x2), 2:20 ("son of God"), 3:22 , 3:26; Phil 3:9.

2. So-called because Christ is the subject who exhibits faith: “the faith[fulness] of Christ”. The alternative, traditional rendering (“objective genitive”) has Christ as the object of faith: “faith in Christ”. “Faith" vs. “faithfulness" is a question that arises secondarily if the subjective genitive is adopted and obviously has a major impact on interpretation as well. These issues have been discussed extensively.

Having chased up the account provided in the answer that follows, I now find there is a full-blown and properly specialist study of precisely this question. Gratifyingly, the main contours are the same, and it looks like Benecke is indeed one of the "heroes" of the tale. Interested readers should therefore consult: Benjamin Schliesser, "‘Exegetical Amnesia’ and ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The ‘Faith of Christ’ in Nineteenth-Century Pauline Scholarship", Journal of Theological Studies 66.1 (2015): 61-89 for wider context, full details, further references (including patristic resources) and informed discussion.

So far as I'm aware, the first argument for the "subjective genitive" (something like "the fidelity of Christ") rather than the commmon understanding as the "objective genitive" (something like "faith in Christ") for Πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis christou) appears in the Romans commentary of Wilhelm Benecke, Der Brief Pauli an die Römer (Heidelberg, 1831), pp. 69ff. = An exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Longman et al, 1854), pp. 142ff. It is a clear, non-technical explanation of and plea for the "subjective genitive". Benecke was not a professional theologian: he is best known for a work on marine insurance! The preface to the English translation of his Romans commentary gives a full biography supplying the background for his foray into theological commentary.

Benecke was followed by J.P. Lange, Der Brief Pauli an die Römer (2nd edition; Velhagen und Klasing, 1868; first published 1865), p. 84 = Lange and F.R. Fay, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Scribners, 1869), p. 129. Lange chides contemporary interpreters for failing to reckon with Benecke's arguments.

Another 19th C. proponent is Johannes Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des Römerbriefes (= The Faith of Jesus Christ and the Christian Faith: A Contribution to the Exposition of Romans), published in 1891 by Georg Böhme (Verlag). He is credited with challenging "the hitherto almost universally accepted view" by Sanday & Headlam, in their older ICC commentary on Romans, pp. 83-84, who summarize and reject his view.1

George Howard wrote a useful article addressing OP's interests (drawing attention to Lange & Fay along the way). He supports the "subjective genitive" interpretation in his article "On the 'Faith of Christ'", Harvard Theological Review 60/4 (1967): 459-465. In it he argues that the Syriac Peshitta unambiguously uses the subjective genitive, and that the Gal. 2:16 occurrence in particular almost demands it.

Howard claims in turn (p. 461) that the "objective genitive" -- almost ubiquitous in more recent writing -- has its origins with Luther. I have checked Luther's Romans and Galatians commentaries, and can't see any special interest in the phrase there (although his remarks on Gal. 3:26 come close, still without explicitly rejecting a "subjective" construal). Howard appears to be basing his comment on Luther's translation practice, though, and Luther's Works are voluminous enough that it might be in there somewhere.

At any rate, this is enough to make clear that the "subjective genitive" understanding goes back at least into the 19th C -- 1831 the first clear expresssion (so far found!) -- and possibly earlier if Howard is correct.

Having posted this answer, I see that the Hays volume referenced by OP also has a discussion of this issue, noting contributions by both Haussleiter and Howard -- although different than the ones cited here! Here Hays is in need of supplementing, and this may be another one of those places where somehow academic tradition enshrines a faulty memory: clearly Haussleiter was not the first to argue for the subjective genitive, even in the 19th C.

HT: @Nathaniel for help tracking down Lange's German commentary.


Reading the genealogy of Adam up to Noah as a sentence in Hebrew I found the following theory that I can only trace as far back as to Chuck Missler (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/). It states that the names is the early Genesis genealogy have the following direct translations:

Adam        Man
Seth        Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared       Shall come down
Enoch       Teaching
Methuselah  His death shall bring
Lamech      The despairing
Noah        Rest, or comfort

which forms the following mini-Gospel when read as a sentence:

  Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come
  down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

My question is two-folds. First, is it true that the Hebrew names can be translated as such? Secondly, would the sequence of names form a regular Hebrew sentence (can verbs, a specific tense, a legal sentence structure, or something similar be identified even in the case where some words are lost in translation)?

I am specifically looking for someone with an understanding of Hebrew to answer.

You are probably familiar with this already, but the 'original' Hebrew contained no vowels (see, e.g., Alan Smith's paper, "Introduction to Hebrew Verbs", or hebrew4christians.com).  The effect would be similar to rendering "Love the Lord your God" as "Lv th Lrd yr Gd".  As far as I know all the grammatical features of the verb would have been known from context or recalled from oral tradition.  The vocalizations that are in the Masoretic Text that is the basis for most Old Testament translations came into existence in the 7th century AD.

Also, as far as I know, the name correspondences you list are correct, although I think that only the verb root is what is given (e.g. "appoint" instead of "appointed", "come down" instead of "shall come down", etc.)

As a result of all of the above, I think one could take the original written Hebrew and string the words together as you suggest, but the result would be meaningless without arbitrarily appending some voice, mood, tense, aspect, etc.  One could, of course, simply take the vocalizations of the Masoretes and apply those, but I don't know how meaningful that would be, since you are constructing a sentence from medieval classical Hebrew words, and not from the original.

Furthermore, striving to search for hidden meanings in Scripture not hitherto revealed smacks to me of gnosticism (The English word "occult" comes from the Latin "occulere", meaning to hide).  This is just my opinion, though.


What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism? I read here that most of the modern Christians believe in a Triune God and Consider Jesus to be  the God in trinity.  I was wondering What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism , as they believe in a strictly monotheistic non trinitarian version of God as believed by the people at the time of Jesus and people before Jesus.

Is there a scope for accommodating the  monotheistic belief of Jews in God along with the trinitarian belief of Christians?

Fundamentally, Christians and Jews worship God the Father in similar fashion, but Christians (meaning Mainstream or Nicene aka Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity) believe God to be larger than just that.  Nicene Christianity confesses that God the Father is "just" one person amongst three within the Godhead.  Muslims and Jews reject this.

While the Trinity is an offense to Muslims and Jews alike, it is nonetheless fundamental to the full understanding of the Godhead.  Christians believe that God is three distinct persons who are one.  This is a paradox. This is nonetheless true, for our limited understanding really precludes an obvious metaphor.

If we would focus on the distinct personalities of God as three individuals (which while technically the heresy of 'Tritheism' is nonetheless useful ) for the discussion here), then we could say:

The Christian understanding of God the Father is primarily (if not entirely) based on the same Scriptures as that of the Jews.  As such, when a Christian prays to God the Father, he could name him "Yahweh" and be perfectly consistent with the Jewish understanding.  (Indeed, it would also be very similiar to that of a Muslim).
Christians pray to God in the name of Jesus, the Son.  Christians fundamentally believe that the Son is God but that he is also Man.  He is not a separate God, but rather we perceive him in different ways.  When Jesus was incarnated, for example, he showed a certain distinction from God the Father (cf. Patripassianism), and yet there is no error in his saying, "I and the Father are one." He taught nothing that was not of accord with his Father.  Ironically, given your current name, He said "Nevertheless, Not my Will but Yours Be Done." In contrast, Jews reject any notion of the divinity of the Son, ergo, they do not agree with Christians in this aspect of God's true nature.
Christians believe that Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father through the Son, and with the Son, He is worshipped and glorified."  I'd argue that in practice, most Christians really don't know what to do with the Holy Spirit - but they acknowledge that like the Son, he is God - though again, Jews (and Muslims) would disagree.

As such, the best answer is to say that Jews and Christians do worship the same God (specifically God the Father), but that Christians have a "fuller" (or "more complex" take your pick) understanding of his nature and how He relates to himself.


Protestants, why do some Christians suffer so much more than others? Yes, we all have our own trials, but there are a few Christians who, very obviously, suffer so much more and much more often too (I am not talking about "bad choices" either, so please do not even bring that up).
Are these tormented Christians cursed by God? Does satan just have a major vendetta towards them? Are they not "truly" saved? Is God punishing them for small sins, hates them, or what?
Not sure how else to ask this, so if any of the Stack Exchange contributors have any suggestions, please let me know.

Jesus warned his disciples that following Him would not be easy:

Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (Matthew 16:24-26)

Jesus knew that many of his followers would be persecuted for righteousness’ sake:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world (John16:33).

Even the Apostle Paul had difficulties in his life – he was beaten, falsely accused, imprisoned and eventually killed because of his faith in Christ Jesus.  He also had a personal affliction which he had to bear.  Yet his faith never faltered:

Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his suffering, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:8-11).

Does Satan just have a major vendetta towards them?  I think it’s fair to say that Satan hates all Christians and his aim is to destroy their faith and get them to renounce Christ Jesus.  He certainly tried his best to turn Job – but failed.
Are they not "truly" saved?  Satan would like Christians to question their salvation, to cast doubts into their minds, to make them stumble and fall.  But Satan is a liar, and the father of the lie.  Jesus promised that all who confess that He is the Son of God can be assured that He abides in them.
Are persecuted, suffering and tormented Christians cursed by God?  Is God punishing them for small sins, hates them, or what?  No.  God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in Him.

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the Day of Judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.  We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother (1 John 4:15-21).

Christians suffer in this world, but this world and all that is in it will pass away; the kingdom of God is eternal. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).
Christians who follow Christ do not see the things of this life, good or bad, as the end of the story. Even the sufferings we endure, as terrible as they can be, “are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us (Romans 8:18).

Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him (James 1:12).

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6)

A final word of encouragement: God has removed sin from all who have repented and turned to Him “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12). This promise stands forever: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).  https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-doubt.html
Conclusion: We do not know why some Christians suffer more than other Christians, but we know this:

In all things God works for the goodof those wholove him, who have been called according to his purpose...  If God is for us, who can be against us?  ...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am convincedthat neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:28, 31,37-39).


Why are the civilly married not allowed confession in the Catholic Church? Why are the civilly married not allowed confession in the Catholic Church?

Is there any guide or law about this?

You can go to confession but you may not receive absolution

  Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
  establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and
  which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the
  procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the
  Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between
  the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

A civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage.  (That is definitional).
However...

  ... a civil marriage would be valid
   1. if neither of the parties is Catholic  (at which point your question is non-applicable)
   2. if at least one of the parties is Catholic and he obtains a dispensation from canonical form (i.e., the provisions of Canon 1108)
    In other words, Canon 1108 applies only to Catholics, and it can be dispensed with on a case-by-case basis.

The above points offered by @AthanasiusofAlex, and accepted.

  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted
  before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by
  either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the
  rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the
  exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127,
  §§1-2.

Understanding the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (confession)

Here's the problem with participating in the sacrament of penance and reconciliation while living in sin (in the eyes of the church):

During the process of confession the penitent resolves to avoid sin
and the near occasion of sin.
If the intent is to go home and resume living in sin, then the person
so confessing has just lied to God during the confession.  Catch-22,
just committed another mortal sin.

Getting on to technicalities now ...

  ... if someone comes to confession and resolves to live from then on according to the Gospel (i.e., to live in continence until his marriage irregularity can be resolved), then he can certainly receive absolution. He can receive absolution even if he foresees that he will fall into temptation (but has nevertheless resolved to do the right thing in that moment).

(Credit to @AthanasiusOfAlex)

  VII. The Acts of the Penitent
  CCC 1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things
  willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice
  complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

  Contrition
  CCC 1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place.
  Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin
  committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

Confession doesn't happen in a vacuum.  What is the penitent's intention?

If the person (or the couple) goes to confession, and resolves to no longer live in sin it doesn't end there.  The couple, with some help from the pastor, can work on convalidating their marriage.  During the process of convalidation (getting the marriage recognized as sacramental) the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is typically received as part of the process.

  convalidation. In Roman Catholic canon law, the making of a putative
  marriage valid following the removal of some impediment.  A ceremony in
  which a marriage, such as a civil marriage, is made recognized by the
  church.

By recognized it means that the church recognizes the marriage as being sacramental.

  CCC 1622 "Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the
  liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid,
  worthy, and fruitful."  It is therefore appropriate for the bride
  and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage
  by receiving the sacrament of penance.

Convalidation covers a wide variety of situations, and is handled on a case by case basis.

  Can.  1160 A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be
  contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without
  prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

A defect of form may be found even if the two in the marriage are committed to each other and otherwise behave as a validly married couple.  (See exception 1 up at the top).  You can't make a general rule about that, as each case is taken on its own merits.  Work with the pastor/local diocese is required.

  CCC 1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the
  spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each
  other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before
  the Church.


What does Liberate 2014/Tullian mean by 'One Way Love'? My question is prompted by the Liberate 2014 Conference and the concept of One Way Love. There's also a book by a pastor Tullian Tchividjian called "One Way Love".

What does Liberate 2014/Tullian mean by 'One Way Love' and what is their understanding of man's role in reciprocating per 1 John 4:19?

  We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

From the introduction to Tullian's book:

The unintended consequence of this push [for a more radical expression of Christianity], however, is that if we're not careful, we
can give people the impression that Christianity is first and foremost
about the sacrifice we make for Jesus rather than the sacrifice Jesus
made for us; our performance for him rather than his performance for
us; our obedience for him rather than his obedience for us. The hub of
Christianity is not "do something for Jesus." The hub of
Christianity is "Jesus has done everything for you."
...
Our relationships, our careers, our institutions also run on the
principle of "I'll do X for you, if you do Y for me." Everything in
our world demands two-way love. Everything's conditional. If you love
me, only then will I love you. If you give to me, only then will I
serve you. This conditionality plagues us at every turn and keeps us
enslaved to fear, reservation, and insecurity.

Thus, "one-way love" means unconditional love. Love that doesn't demand reciprocity. Their aim is to show the unconditionality of God's grace.
In the video at your link, Elyse Fitzpatrick says:

You don't have to worry anymore about whether or not you're loved. You're loved, so you can love now because you've been loved.

This could almost itself be a paraphrase of 1 John 4:19. The idea, however, as Caleb said in the comments, is that "the instigator in the equation was God and his love and we only reciprocate because he initiated."
Here are some more comments from Tullian Tchividjian about 1 John 4:19:

The law can inform us of our sin but it cannot transform the sinner. It can show us what love for God and others looks like, but only love can produce love for God and others (1 John 4:19).

I can only truly love others when I've first been overwhelmed by a satisfying Love from outside myself [1 John 4:19].

God's love for us does not depend on our love for God. Our love for God depends on God's love for us. (See 1 John 4:19)


Did original Christian theology that predated the birth of Jesus teach anything similar to the doctrine of the Trinity? Since Christianity stems from Judaism did the Jews believe that their Messiah and their God would be the same person as described in the Trinity?

No, neither the Jews (those left after the northern exile) nor the entirety of the Hebrews (all those of the faith before the northern exile) held to any concept of a trinity. The ancient egyptians had a trinity, but not the Hebrews. In fact, they held to a strict monotheism as taught by scripture.

  Deuteronomy 6:4 The Scriptures 1998+ (4) Hear, O Yisra’el: יהוה our Elohim, יהוה is one!

Fortunately for the purposes of our discussion, the verse of the translation above is a word for word and in the same order as that of the original Hebrew. This was pretty much the creed of the faithful and the creed that our Messiah Yahushua re-iterated in Mark 12:29. The above is extremely important due to the grammatical construction of the sentence in Hebrew. For those of you who don't know, in order to express something as singular, you place the numerical designation after the noun. But in order to express something as plural, you place the numerical designation before the noun. In English we always place the numerical designation before the noun so it's not as obvious to us when we read it. But in Hebrew if you wanted to say "3 o'clock" you would say "hour three". It's the third hour, but it's still a singular hour. However, if you wanted to say "three hours" then you would simply say "three hours" to indicate plurality.

This brings us back to the verse above. Here we clearly see that the numerical designation is AFTER Yahuweh (aka God). Take a look at the original Hebrew for further verification. We can clearly see how the Hebrews, then the Jews, and then the Christians (at least up until the Catholic councils) would view Yahuweh (aka God) as one as opposed to seeing Yahuweh (aka God) as three as is stated in the theory of the trinity.

And also, no, the Hebrews and then just the Jews (after the northern exile) would not have thought of Yahuweh (aka God) as becoming human and dieing. The scriptures clearly indicate that Yahuweh is eternal and cannot die (Deuteronomy 23:40, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 102:27) and the Hebrews would also have read many times as they went over and over the Torah, how Yahuweh is not a man nor a son of man:

  Numbers 23:19 The Scriptures 1998+ (19) “El is not a man, to lie; nor a son of man, to repent! Has He said, and would He not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?

So to answer your question directly, no, the Hebrews, then the Jews (after the northern exile), and then the early Christians until the Catholic councils would not have imagined that Yahuweh (aka God) would come to earth as the Messiah.


Exodus 20, "And God spoke all these words:" Exodus 20 leads off with "And God spoke all these words."  However, many of the words in Exodus 20 are clearly not "in the first person."  For example, verse 8 is not "God's words" but [Moses's] editorialized explanation for it. Otherwise, God would be referring to Himself in the third person.  Exodus 34:21, though, clearly is a "first person" commandment, God said, "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in plowing and harvesting seasons, you must rest."  That passage, however, is in the midst of a number of other "laws" that seem to be extra-10-Commandments. Can someone please help me understand: God says "all" the laws in Exodus 34. Those would seem to be the "definitive" 10+ commandments. However, we use the text of Exodus 20 as "THE" 10 Commandments, even though portions of those text are clearly not recorded verbatim as God spoke them.  How is Exodus 34 not "definitive"?

Background
The "Law" began by God peaking directly to everyone who was present at Mt Sinai:

1 And God spoke all these words, saying...18 Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid[d] and trembled, and they stood far off 19 and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” 21 The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. (Exodus 20) [ESV]
d. Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate; Masoretic Text the people saw

At the request of the people, the "Law" from God was given by two methods:

The Ten Commandments spoken by God to everyone (and written by God)
All other laws spoken by God to Moses who wrote them down and told them to the people

The second method was not done "all at once" but over a period of time. At intervals we are told Moses told the people what God had said and that he wrote it down. For example:

Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. (Exodus 24:3-4)

In the giving of the Ten Commandments, there is one, the command to observe the Sabbath, in which a reason for the command is given:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20)

Since it is God who is speaking, the question is why wasn't the explanation for the Sabbath given in the first person as was the first command:

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. (20:2-3)
For in six days the LORD [I] made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD [I] blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Nature of God
The answer is found in the nature of God:

And God spoke all these words, saying...(20:1)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

"God" is the Hebrew אֱלהִים which linguistically is plural:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image... (Genesis 1:26)

First, if the Sabbath command had been given in the first person, one would expect it would be the first person plural, as in the making of man. However, that would seriously undermine the monotheistic message of a singular God:

For in six days we made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore we blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Second, while God is plural and the discussion to make man was given in the plural (let us make...), the actual work of creation was done through Jesus:

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

Therefore, when "God" is speaking at Mt Sinai, the reason the explanation for the Sabbath is given as "the LORD" is to preserve the monotheistic nature of the triune God while stating the actual work was done by Jesus:

For in six days the LORD (Jesus) made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD (Jesus) blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.