According to reformed theology, how does the fall glorify God? What this question is not about:

This question is NOT about:

Is God omniscient (all knowing?), omnipotent (all powerful?) and benevolent? Then if God foresaw the first sin, and had the power to stop it, why did he not?

This question is also not about:

Did God predestine Satan revolt? Did God predestine Adam/Eve to fall?

What this question is about:

In my understanding, Reformed Theology views everything in terms of the glory of God. Thus, original sin -- Satan's revolt and the fall of men -- exists to glory some aspect of God (either his righteousness, his mercy, his grace, his love, or ...)

Aside:  Erwin Lutzer's "The Serpent of Paradise" somewhat gets into this: namely, the interaction of Satan and God reveals certain attributes of God.

What are the main arguments that Reformed Theologists use for how Sin + the fall Glorifies God?

Please cite references (As great as a 5-6 paragraph essay can be, certain subtleties can only be captured in a 100 page or so book.)

Hints

(none of these are required for a correct answer; they're mainly incomplete thoughts /intuition on my part)

For example, arguments expanding on thought along "Redemptive history is about the Glory of God in predestinating a group of people to be saved to showcase his grace" ... would be very helpful.

Clarifications:

I think it's agreed that Sin + Satan somehow glorifies God. But I think the interesting question is the mechanics of how it Glorifies God. In a similar manner, the old testament faithful knew that God was somehow going to redeem humanity, but he fascinating part was how God was going to do it (Christ dying o the cross); similarly, we know that Christ will establish a kingdom, but the fascinating part is how Christ establishes his kingdom (book of Revelations, not as how worldly empires do). Similarly, the fascinating issue here is how does Sin / Satan exist to glorify God?

The Fall indeed glorifies God

The reformer that spent the most effort in making his thoughts fully known about this subject is Jonathan Edwards. He wrote two famous books on the topic:

Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World, popularized in modern times by John Piper's edition, God's Passion for His Glory
Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue

Although both of these works appear highly philosophical Edwards derived his thoughts from scriptures and I will try and lay out the very basics.

The basic idea goes like this. God, due to his nature cannot be profited by, or receive anything from the creature as he is perfect. He can't suffer loss or gain outside of himself.

Since God is perfection anything "good and valuable" in and of itself itself,
God values it with an ultimate respect. Also since God is infinitely valuable "in and of himself" God must then be the reason for Creation as he must love himself above all things:

  That if God himself be, in any respect properly capable of being in its own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 14)

Edwards also notes that it is the final result of Creation that must be the original purpose for it and for all things part of Creation.

  Whatsoever thing is actually the effect of the creation of the worlds which is simply and absolutely valuable in itself, that thing is an ultimate end of God's creating the world. We see that it is a good which God aimed at by the creation of the world; because he has actually attained it by that means. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 18)

How it glorifies God

The mechanics of how is dependent on what we think "glory" is. When we define "glory" we can define how it is manifested by the Devil, fall, etc.

Defining glory

In describing what true virtue, or "God's glory", is, Edwards says:

  true virtue consists in love to being in general
  (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 95)

Then Edwards clearly defines what he means by stating the proper objects of perfect love:

  The first object of a virtuous benevolence is being, simply considered; and if being, simply considered, be its object, then being in general is its object; and what it has an ultimate propensity to is the highest good of being in general. And it will seek the good of every individual being unless it be conceived as not consistent with the highest good of being in general.
  (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 97)

In other words he says perfect virtue, glory seeks to be itself above all things and this is the same as seeking the good of every being. However as Edwards hold the election of the reprobate he adds the limitation of "unless..." which we should treat as off-topic as this goes too far into speculation about the mystery of election.

Here is the second prime object of perfect love, or glory:

  The second object of a virtuous propensity of heart is benevolent being. A secondary ground of pure benevolence is virtuous benevolence itself in its object. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 98)

In other words, not only does pure glory seek to be itself, but its glory is also held in its actual goodness towards any object that it seeks to bless.

From defining this "ultimate virtue", which is God's "glory", he says love to God is evidently what virtue is in us as well:

  it is evident, that true virtue must chiefly consist in love to god; the Being of beings (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 101)

He adds that this must lead to an "enjoyment" and "rejoicing" as part of the nature of true virtue:

  A benevolent propensity of heart is exercised, not only in seeking to promote the happiness of the being towards whom it is exercised, but also in rejoicing in his happiness. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 104)

I will not continue to outline his arguments but from this you can see a reformed framework from which to argue anything about the subject. So to avoid the 17th century difficult language here is modern English verbiage: God is perfect and perfection must love itself above all things being perfectly benevolent. Therefore, the purpose of all creatures must be to serve the highest benevolence of all creatures to the pleasures of God, for which all things are done to the praise of his glory. We must not imagine that the praise of his glory in any way conflicts with our highest good for all manifestations of God's glory is to our highest good as the essential property of his perfection, so the more God is glorified only means the more we are blessed as he can't gain anything from our praise or obedience it is only by these that we obtain the effects of his perfect love towards us.

Regarding sin, the Devil and the fall specifically

We can see how this reformed faith is worked out. As God will not and can't suffer any thing but what is for his own glory, seeing that he turns everything he does to the greater and more illustrious advancement of his own glory, the Devil, the fall, sin, all evil, etc. were included in his decision to create the universe and all things in it. For example we would not know how loving and full of grace God was if a fall did not happen, because only by the fall do we see God was willing to suffer Himself in Christ to save His creation. This properly manifests God's perfection to us, more than if it did not happen. Similarly, we would not know how much God hates sin if we did not see the judgment he has made against it, which again makes his perfections known to us.

How it relates to providence and predestination

Regarding the specific question as it is tied into the words "predestined", from the wider standpoint of the term he did predestine it all, however, this predestination included some free choice of its creatures fully bound into the envelope of his sovereign will and determined purposes. In the narrow sense of the word, sin can't be said to be predestined at all, as being part of God's will, for its very nature is defined by its inherent opposition to God's will. This argument won deemed nonsensical and there are no reformers who thought this or taught it.

I mention a narrow and wider sense of "predestine" to distinguish how we use the word in English. In the Bible, when Paul says predestined, for example, in Romans 8:30, he used the Greek προώρισεν (proorízō). This comes from two root words (pró) "before" and (horizon) "establish boundaries, limits". Therefore the term "predestine" means "establish unmovable boundaries before creation". Therefore, it is the wider sense of the word that should be used and we can then answer Biblically in the affirmative. "Yes", God predestined everything to the praise and our enjoyment of his glorious grace. Yet as already mentioned, not specifically predestined as he did "specifically" predestine those souls who would, when all things are complete, enjoy him forever and ever. Our election is a special subset of God's overall general boundary-setting and providential management of all things and we should not confuse the two.

In regards to the "mechanics of how" this providential boundary-setting of all things, including those things that oppose God's will, is managed and maintained by God no man can conjecture, but only believe. At a minimum we can simply say that all things recorded in scripture manifest the mechanics and this, including all the history of God with Israel: where his holy will was revealed, his hatred of sin and opposition to it made known man's wickedness, his promise of a Messiah to bring salvation, etc. It also includes most importantly the actual sending of his Son, Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. His resurrection is not for himself or "his own glory" in the wrongly understood selfish sense as though he can be glorified more than his own eternal glory is, but "for us" whereby we become possessors of the universe. God's glory is simply the manifestation of his perfect love to us by grace, giving him nothing more than he had before creation, but giving everything to us which we did not have. In this way "all things" work out for our own benefit as God's grace and our benefit coincide in Christ in an incomprehensible manner (taken up more in this post.


Who is this member of the Catholic Church? I was wondering who this man is, in the Catholic church:

I am wondering his position therein more so than his name. *I saw him in a dream moments ago—I am not Catholic, I am Apostolic Pentecostal.

This person is a deacon, which can be discerned from the fact that he is wearing the dalmatic, the deacon’s traditional vestment. (Based on the background and the logo of the Vatican Television Center, this appears to be in St. Peter’s Basilica; I suspect this deacon is proclaiming the Gospel, or—if this was taken at the Easter Vigil—the Easter Proclamation or Exsultet.)


Blessings of objects by the Priest Is there an official list of objects that must be blessed by a priest for a variety of purposes?

General Example:  religious coins, saint necklaces, anniversary gifts given to or from someone etc.

The Green Scapular for example must be blessed by a priest. And someone must say a particular prayer daily. This is an example of an religious object a priest must bless.

There is no list of items that "must" be blest by a priest (or a deacon), yet we Catholics are used to blessing everything.  There are items that can be required to be blest by a certain person.  The crucifix of St. Benedict is required to be blest by a deacon or priest.  There really isn't a source of which I am aware one can go to to find this kind of answer, but the catechism addresses it more in terms of general principles.  See CCC Chapter 4, Article 1, paragraphs 1667-1679.
In terms of blessing sacramentals, this is the general principle from the catechism:

Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless. [Cf. Gen 12:2; Lk 6:28; Rom 12:14; 1 Pet 3:9.] Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons). [Cf. SC 79; CIC, can. 1168; De Ben 16, 18.]
CCC 1669

Further, Canon Law states:

The minister of the sacramentals is a cleric who has the requisite power. In accordance with the liturgical books and subject to the judgment of the local Ordinary, certain sacramentals can also be administered by lay people who possess the appropriate qualities.
Canon 1168

The forms of sacramentals described in 1670 is expressed this way, "Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first."
From this it is clear that liturgical and sacramental blessings require a deacon or priest.  It also implies ordinary Christians can bless outside sacramental and ecclesial (church) life (except in the case of solemn or major exorcism, see 1673).  It would be advisable for a Catholic to consult the parish priest or diocesan bishop concerning this to avoid dangers or going too far with it.


Did Paul read aloud his letters to the Corinthians? To the Philippians? Other books? I'd like to know if there's evidence that Paul presented his letters (e.g., Corinthians, Philippians, etc.) in the manner of spoken sermons to people of various churches, or if his letters were written and only quietly read.

I'm asking because I think it would alter my experience of reading the text, as so far I have simply read it as a thoughtfully written letter, not while imagining a crowd before this one guy speaking.

The Bible informs us that Paul was a powerful orator and we have evidence of the impact of his public speaking, for example as recorded in Acts 17:16-34.

However, there is no “evidence” that Paul, having written or dictated letters to the various churches scattered throughout Italy, Greece and Asia, then stood up in the church and delivered his message like a sermon.  The only responses you are likely to get to your question are opinions, which do not constitute “evidence” and that is why some have voted to have this question closed.

However, it is possible to establish a timeline showing approximately when he wrote his various letters, when he was on his three missionary journeys and when he was imprisoned.  One certainty is that Paul wrote Ephesians, Philemon, Colossians and Philippians during his first Roman imprisonment and his second letter to Timothy during his second Roman imprisonment.

This timeline is an approximation of the dates of Paul’s missionary journeys and when he wrote to the various churches that had been established during those trips.

1st Missionary Journey AD 46-48 (Acts 13-14): Paul and Barnabas leave the church at Antioch in Syria. At first, their method of evangelism was to preach in the town synagogues. After many of the Jews rejected Christ, they recognized the need to witness to the Gentiles.

Galatians written circa AD 47

1 & 2 Thessalonians written circa AD 49-51

2nd Missionary Journey AD 50-52 (Acts 15:36-18:22): After another stay in Antioch, building up the church there, Paul takes Silas to Asia Minor after which God providentially redirects them to Greece, bringing the gospel to Europe. At Philippi, the missionary team is beaten and imprisoned. Traveling on to Athens, Paul preaches to an inquisitive audience on Mars Hill.  Paul taught those who believed in Christ and established them in churches.

1 & 2 Corinthians and letter to Romans written between AD 52 and 56

3rd Missionary Journey AD 53-57 (Acts 18:23-20:38): During Paul’s third journey, he fervently preached in Asia Minor. Acts 20:7-12 tells of Paul at Troas preaching an exceptionally long sermon. Once involved in the occult, the new believers at Ephesus burned their magic books. At the end of Paul’s third missionary journey, he knew he would soon be imprisoned and probably killed. His final words to the church at Ephesus display his devotion to Christ (Acts 20:18-24).

During Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome (AD 60-62) he writes to the Ephesians, Philemon, the Colossians, and the Philippians; his first letter to Timothy and letter to Titus written circa AD 62.

During Paul’s second imprisonment in Rome (AD 63-64) he writes his second letter to Timothy.

Paul dies AD 67/68

Whether Paul personally delivered sermons to the various churches he established throughout Syria, Galatia, Asia and Greece in no way affects the power of the letters he wrote.  Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit and because of that, his written words are every bit as important and meaningful as anything he spoke.  These days, it seems to me (and this is my own personal opinion) that people are too easily swayed by powerful speakers with charismatic personalities but who may be preaching a false gospel.  We don’t need somebody to stand up in a pulpit and tell us what to believe.  All we need is recorded in the Bible, which is the Word of God, and it is by reading God’s Word and believing in its message that we are blessed.

You would benefit from buying a Study Bible (such as the New International Version, The New Living Translation or the English Standard Version) because they contain lots of useful information on what was going on back then, and provide timelines and maps that help to bring the events and the characters to life.


Is the Star Wars "Church of the Force" a revival of the Manichaean heresy? Lots of Christian movie critics have been going on and on about the new Star Wars movies of late and some bring up a good point:

“Darkness” and “light” are notable themes in Gnostic and especially Manichaean thought; they also feature prominently in 1 John, for instance. (In Star Wars, the “light” side of the Force is usually called the “good side” — when it’s specified at all. “The Force,” used without clarification, often means “the good side,” giving goodness a kind of priority.)
Steven Graydanus - Is Star Wars Gnostic?

The problem I face is that the underlying philosophy is exceptionally problematic and lots of kids are buying in to it, even more than before.  Kids I've taught honestly think that conscience is some sort of battle between angels and demons hanging out on your shoulder.  And they see good and evil in the way Star Wars portrays it.
I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with exactly what the succinct reason light vs darkness in the context of Star Wars is more like light vs darkness in the Manichean Heresy than it is light and darkness in the Biblical sense.   Furthermore, it would seem from reading a few things about The Force Awakens that I had shied away from before seeing the movie that:

 the who is killed guy in the beginning of the movie might be some sort of figure in the "Church of the Force"

Previously, I didn't think there was any religiosity to the force. But now, I'm not so sure...
The questions, succinctly put is: What is the difference between the way Catholicism portrays the balance between good and evil and the way is is portrayed in Star Wars and how close does the way it is portrayed in Star Wars align with the Manichaean Heresy?
Orthodox Catholic answers preferred, you don't have to posit a quodlibet, but those are fun to read!

What did Filmmaker George Lucas set out to do with Star Wars?

George Lucas says he wanted to retell old mythology with classical mythological motifs in a new way. - Cf. The Mythology of STAR WARS, YouTube posting by Shawn Schaitel.

What is the Force according to George Lucas?

There is a dark side and there is a light side. A selfish side and a selfless side. One has to keep them balanced. Actually the balance is NOT to go down to the dark side, whose path, which produces short-lived pleasure, is a selfish person wanting and/or accumulating stuff; afraid of losing or having the stuff acquired taken away makes one angry. That anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. The dark side never leads to satisfaction but unhappiness because the person always wants and is afraid to lose what they have already obtained. On the other hand the sefless person has the joy of giving and there is no pain. - Cf. George Lucas on the Force interview (2010), YouTube posting by John Smith.

Are there religious themes in Star Wars?

Yes and this is to be expected as old mythology with classical mythological motifs have religious themes. For example in the The Mythology of STAR WARS YouTube video linked above, common in religions he researched was that evil characters have horns.

Does the Force align with the Manichæism?

Manichæism, a religion founded by the Persian Mani in the latter half of the third century, purported to be the true synthesis of all the religious systems then known, and actually consisted of Zoroastrian Dualism, Babylonian folklore, Buddhist ethics, and some small and superficial, additions of Christian elements. Manichæism is classified as a form of religious Dualism.

From the way George Lucas describes the Force, it is the person themselves who choose to go to the dark side or the light side of the force, while my understanding of dualism is that reality is the outcome of two eternally opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil, light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. Therefore George Lucas' Force does not align with Manichæism.

What is the difference between the way Catholicism portrays the balance between good and evil and the way is is portrayed in Star Wars?

To be clear, Catholicism does not teach that there is a balance between good and evil. Catholicism teaches that God is the Supreme Infinite Good and all the good that the creatures have is a participation in this goodness. Evil arises with free creatures, first the angels and then men who disobey and then go on to oppose or not fulfill God's will for them. In Catholicism, evil is no match for Good and will eventually and for ever be vanquished.

Where George Lucas' Force is similar to Catholicism's understanding of Good and evil, is that it is preferable for a person to choose the light side of the Force [choose Good over evil] because they will find happiness along this path.

Further Reference

Charlie Rose George Lucas.


What are the Biblical arguments against modalism? Modalism, or Sabellianism, is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three "roles" or "modes" of the same person.

This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism?

Biblically the biggest problem with modalism is that you end up having God talking to himself several times in the NT.

The idea of modalism is simple enough - God has different "modes" of being, kind of like an actor who simply appears with different masks in different situations [1]. If the same person is merely appearing in multiple forms simultaneously, there are some weird situations in Scripture that result, and have implications that are dicey.

When Jesus is Baptised, a voice from heaven declares, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased".  If Jesus is just a different view of the same God, why would he say something like this, to himself?  It makes God seem a bit arrogant, frankly.
When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out "Father, Why have you forsaken me?"  How could he forsake himself if he is the same person forsaking and forsaken.  Note - specifically in relation to the cross, the view that the Father was on the cross is a heresy known as Patripassianism - from "the Father suffering"
In Hebrews 9:14, "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offer[s] himself unblemished to God".  How can Christ offer his own blood to himself if he is the same person?  Unless that were somehow possible, Substitutionary Atonement is also invalid.(See Note 2)

By maintaining the distinct personalities (and personhood) of each part of the Trinity, you avoid all of these ridiculous to downright bad implications.

1 Or kind of like the Doctor meeting his past selves, crossing the timelines, and somehow necessitating running up and down corridors a lot. But I digress!

2 Note - Substitutionary Atonement is only one theory of salvation, so even if you could some how prove Modalism true and S.A. false, it wouldn't deprive us of salvation - it would just upset a lot of people who think this legal metaphor is the only theory that describes salvation.


Do any denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets? The recent discovery of an Earth-like planet caused me to wonder: do any Christian denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets? If so, what is the doctrine?

Related: Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints mentions other worlds in their scripture.
Doctrine and Covenants 76:23-24

23 For we saw him [Jesus], even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

Moses 1:31-35

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.


Was David aware that his words were prophetic according to any doctrines, traditions, or exegesis? Often times Christians cite some of the writings of David as prophetically applicable towards Jesus.

Therefore, I'm curious if there are any doctrines, traditions or textual evidence that suggest that David was or wasn't aware of the prophetic applicability of his writings.

For example:

  "Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." - Psalms 2:12

Did David just think he was talking about himself as the anointed son of the Lord or did he recognize a double meaning to come?

The answer to this question could give insight into David's motivations as well as reveal implications for analyzing the writings of other potential or confirmed prophets.

No one could know for sure what David knew or was thinking when he wrote, for example, Psalms 22 (one of my favorite) which can clearly be taken as entirely prophetic of Christ, but also refects David's own personal experiences. Jesus quoted (part of) verse one from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", and the soldiers fulfilled verse 18, "They parted my garments..." (having no idea that they were doing so) indicating that it was indeed prophetic.

Ps 49:15 "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he will recieve me" shows a little that David did know for sure, and trust in, and again it was Jesus who redeemed David's soul.

Saul also prophesied in I Sam 10:11-12 and in 1 Sam 19:24, and in Num 22 God even opened the mouth of a donkey! 2 Pet 2:16

One thought is that David's own experiences as a rejected king for so many years allowed him to experience some of the same emotions and feelings that Jesus would eventually feel, giving him a personal insight into the Christ that hadn't come yet.


Besides JWs, are there other Christian denominations where meetings regularly consist of congregation-wide study sessions? I have been in quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses meetings at their Kingdom Hall and am a bit intrigued about the meeting format.

All the Sunday meetings consist of a 30-minute talk (I take this would be referred to as a "sermon" in other denominations), given by an elder. This is followed by the Watchtower study which is like a question and answer session for the congregation on an article from the magazine.

Each magazine has about 4 study articles and so is used for during 4 weekend meetings. After that they go to the next magazine. The study articles in each magazine are on different biblical subjects, like faith/salvation/endurance, and so on.

For example last Sunday's Watchtower study was on the subject "Parents—Help Your Children Become “Wise for Salvation”", from this Watchtower magazine.

Below is an example of the questions that were discussed (from this page in the magazine). The easiest way to explain this format is by a video posted from another congregations meeting; this video of that meeting starts at the point where below paragraphs are discussed.

  7, 8. (a) How does one Christian father show patience in teaching his
  daughter? (b) How have you found the need for similar patience?

  7 Thomas, the father of an 11-year-old girl, relates: “My daughter
  might ask, ‛Could Jehovah have used evolution to develop life on
  earth?’ or, ‛Why don’t we get involved in the community—with
  elections, for example—to try to improve things?’ Sometimes I have to
  bite my tongue so as not to give a dogmatic answer. After all,
  conviction isn’t the result of one large chunk of truth. It comes from
  many small pieces of evidence.”

  8 As Thomas knows, teaching takes patience. Actually, patience is
  important for all Christians. (Col. 3:12) Thomas realizes that there
  may be a need for many discussions over a period of time. He needs to
  reason on the Scriptures so that his daughter develops conviction
  about what she learns. “Especially on important points,” says Thomas,
  “my wife and I want to know if our daughter really believes what she
  is learning and if it makes sense to her. If she has questions, that’s
  good. Frankly, I would worry if she accepted something without asking
  questions.”

Question:

Are there other denominations that have this kind of a question/answer study format as standard part of their Sunday meeting, or is this more like typical to Jehovah's Witnesses?

The English Puritans of the 16th Century held "prophesyings":

  To improve the faith and training of parish clergy, Puritan ministers in the 1570s began holding a series of public conferences at which several sermons would be preached on the same Biblical text, the text would be discussed by the ministers present, and the proceedings would be summarized for the attending public by a moderator. Thus, though ostensibly for the education of clergy, the prophesyings also exposed the laity to Puritan teachings and to criticisms of the bishops and the Anglican Church.... Prophesyings were the first step in the formation of an informal and illegal system of presbyterian church government, which aimed to replace bishops with a hierarchy of assemblies comprising ministers and church elders. Because laypeople attended and observed prophesyings, the gathers were important not only for improving preaching among ministers but for spreading Puritan ideas among the people and thereby creating new adherents to the Puritan movement.

Source: John Wagner (2000). Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World: Britain, Ireland, Europe and America. p. 248.


Is David's Love for Jonathan erotic? The following verses about David and Jonathan's relationship have lead some to say their relationship was more than platonic. Is there any reason to think that was the case?

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. (1 Samuel 18:1, NASB)
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:3, ESV)
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. (2 Samuel 1:26, NIV)

In your question you seem to have overlooked two very important points

1st Samuel 18:1  KJV

  And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and *Jonathan loved him as his own soul. *

In the "soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David" the important point here is the word knit That word in the original was:

קָשַׁר

  qashar (kaw-shar') v.
  1. bind (up), (make a) conspire(-acy, -ator), join together, knit, stronger, work (treason)

In today's vernacular that would be said " that they had become Soul mates".

There are no connotations of any physical relationship the word used for such a union is:

שָׁכַב

  shakab (shaw-kab') v.
  1. to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)
  [a primitive root]
  KJV: X at all, cast down, ((lover-))lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

So in answer to your question is no it was not erotic.

For the record how can a person have an erotic encounter with his soul?


Why did Jacob curse some of his sons? When Jacob "blessed" his sons in Genesis 49, why does he seem to curse some of them? What kind of blessing is it to say "you will no longer excel"? Granted, the curses were meted out according to deeds, but the Bible does, ironically, state that "this is what their father said to them when he blessed them, giving each the blessing appropriate to him" (italics added). I'm curious about the original meaning of "blessing" and "blessed" -- perhaps the original word was not as restrictive?

This is the footnote to Gn 49:1 (RSVCE).

  a. 49.1-27 In their present form these “Oracles of Jacob,”
  blessings pronounced upon his sons as epitomizing the twelve tribes,
  date from the period of the early monarchy.

Therefore seen as oracles, they are prophetic pronouncements of what is to become of the tribes with the sons themselves having played a part in their fate.


Where in the bible explicitly did Jesus say he is God? It is known to all that back then there are people that worship (non)living things such as the sun/moon or a dead notable person. It is also known that most if not all, of those things/person never even claimed to be the God, however, their followers do.
Did Jesus every say explicitly that he is God? I do not accept statements that are not explicit because

It's of the words of the writer or other people.

or

It can be interpreted in a different way.

Unlike explicit statements, it can't interpreted in a different way and it doesn't require you to know the context and stuff.

We see Jesus telling the High Priest before the public at Mk 41:62=63 that He is indeed the Son of God :
"Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”   Jesus said, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power,’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”


Why are there differences in the "Greeting" of the Mass? This website lists three options for the greeting recited by the presider of the Mass.
After the following:

Priest:  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  [All together make the sign of the cross.]
All:  Amen.

Then, one of three options:

Option A
Priest:  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
All:  And also with you.

Option B
Priest:  The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
All:  Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
or All:  And also with you.

Option C
Priest:  The Lord be with you.
[or Bishop:  Peace be with you.]
All:  And also with you.

Why are there three options?
Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?

Not just the introductory right, there are numerous variation for prayers all through the mass. There are 13 Eucharistic Prayers approved by Holy See for use in the United States.src

Why are there three options?

Because even though all Mass are same in essence, people are invited to meditate upon a certain theme in each mass. Prayers differ depending on the theme of the mass.

Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?

Answer is both. Mostly it is the presider's choice. But he has to follow the guidelines in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal Chapter VII. The bishop can make changes but all changes have to be approved by Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline of The Sacraments


What is the Eastern Orthodox view on Protestants and Catholics I am sure this question has been asked before but because I can't find a question similar, I am going to ask it. If there is, please link it and close the question.
I recently left the Methodist church and have been attending Mass with my dad. I was told by my friend who is an Eastern Orthodox Christian to go to his church instead because the "Latins" are wrong. I asked for the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthdox Church and got the two main reasons being the filioque clause and the Pope. He also said that the Orthodox Christians might be the only group of people saved. This got me thinking what is the official stance of salvation of the Orthdox Church and can all Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthdox, etc.) be saved. He did mention that only God really knows who will be saved which is true but does the Orthodox Church even recognize Catholics and Protestants as Christians?
I know that Protestants typically view all Christian denominations (besides non trinitarian groups) to be Christian. And that the Catholic Church believes something similar but not knowing the full truth. But I know nothing about the Orthodox view.

The Orthodox Church, in my opinion, makes it very clear that they believe it is the One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church established at Pentecost and continues today.  Yet, it recently has broadened its willingness to talk with other sects.

In keeping with the church's teaching on universality and with the Nicene Creed, Orthodox authorities such as Saint Raphael of Brooklyn have insisted that the full name of the church has always included the term "Catholic", as in "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church".[18][19][20] The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church".[5][6][7][8]
Wiki

They put ecumenicism this way.

Why have the Orthodox churches decided to be involved in the ecumenical movement for the unity of God’s Church, and how does this involvement relate to their claim to be the embodiment of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
-source-

There is the belief that God's Spirit still works in the sects.

The belief of St. Cyprian that outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church there is no salvation must be respected as a strong urge to maintain and respect the unity of God’s Church. However, today’s needs require it to be supplanted with the theology of schism advanced by St. Augustine. For St. Augustine, schismatic and heretical communities, in spite of their formal separation from the una sancta, continue to maintain bonds of unity with it. All the separated Christian churches are related to each other and in communion, however imperfectly, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The recognition of this relationality is warranted by the fact that there are many still unbroken bonds whereby the schismatic communities are held in certain unity with the One Church. These bonds, in the words of Florovsky, include " right belief, sincere devotion, the Word of God, and above all the grace of God, which ever heals the weak and supplies what is lacking." There is thus in every schismatic and heretical community something of God that connects them with the life of the God’s Church. "What is valid in the sects is that which is in them from the Church, that which remains with them as their portion of the sacred inner core of the Church, that through which they are with the Church. "
-ibid-

So, to answer the OP, it appears to me that the Orthodox view Catholics and Protestants as "separated brothers and sisters in Christ" who have fallen from the truth, but who nonetheless retained some validity and are thus part of the Church.


In the "Apostles' Creed" were they referring to themselves when they said "holy catholic church"? I know that the stock answer concerning the identity of "the holy catholic church" is to say that it refers to the "Church Universal". But in all honesty, weren't they talking about Constantine's circle of bishops, loyal to Rome?

Weren't they saying, in effect, that "we bishops that are signing this comprise the government of the Church Universal and we write its laws"?

Constantine Not the  Father of Catholicism

Constantine has nothing to do with Catholicism whatsoever, except that he, as a pagan, was a lukewarm convert to it, and was baptized before his death. Whether or not Nicaea I was convened, the Trinity was still the Catholic faith before and afterwards—the only difference is that whereas before the Nicaean understanding of God was not dogmatically settled (but simply the lived faith, not hitherto defined officially), it was still believed in a 'more than unofficial, but not yet official' capacity.

This is a common myth spread by 'history' documentaries with zero sources: that since he convened a Council for Christians to settle their disputes about the precise nature of Christ's divinity, as the bishops discussed a salvation issue in Jerusalem a few centuries prior (Acts 15), that he 'made Trinitarianism the official religion.'

In reality, he simply legalized Christianity; it would only later be made the official religion of the Empire, an indubitable and objective improvement on the prevalent heathen religions which mocked Christianity, and hated Christ implicitly or otherwise.

The 'Constantine invented Trinitarian pagan Christianity' trope simply needed to exist in one way or the other: it amounts to a fumbling attempt at explaining the dominance of the persecuted religion begun by some obscure teacher from Jerusalem over the most mighty Empire of all time, which on a natural level is quite impossible, and which was also prophesied to make matters worse.

Catholic Just Means Universal

The Greek word καθολικος (sometimes simply transliterated due to its quasi-technical use) just means 'universal' (or 'general' as in 'the General Judgement [of all humanity on the last day]') or 'everywhere' (in the geographical sense; cf. Acts 9:31: η εκκλεσια καθ’ ολης). It's not rocket science how the true Church both would and could describe itself as the universal church, which isn't limited to certain bishops and regions, like sects, cults and heresies. It's a great adjectival or title for the Church because only the true Church, rather usefully for discernment of the true Church, can be universal in all centuries. Arianism wasn't 'catholic' because it was started by Arius, and everyone upbraided him when he started teaching this heresy because it was new, and not catholic. This took its fullest form in the Council of Nicaea, where the Catholic Church gathered to condemn this novelty, and affirm the catholic—Catholic—truth on the matter. They didn't need to assert the authority bishops in unison had to teach on Scripture, even though they had it; they didn't need to cite Scripture to prove the perennial faith to some heretic, but they did. They could have simply cited, as Athanasius would cite, the perennial faith as held by the fathers of the faith, those who passed the Scriptures on to them from the beginning, and how they all taught the Trinity as the true doctrine on God.

To be Christian before relatively recently (1500s), was just to be Catholic and vice versa, then. (I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard 'Are you Catholic or are you Christian.') It's a myth that there were 'secret bible believing Christians who weren't catholic and believed sola scriptura and symbolic eucharist' etc. It's just antihistory.

Authorship of the Apostles' Creed

One can't prove the Apostles' themselves penned this creed, although that is a traditional (little 't') ascription. But it is impossible to claim that it doesn't crystallize the faith of the early Church as seen from every evidence we have of it, which it manifestly is. Both of these things are subjectively indistinguishable anyway. There is no need for conspiracy here anywhere... unless you do not belong to the same Church as the fathers of the faith, in which case you have every reason to need such conspiracies to explain the absence of your church anywhere close to the beginning.

The path of least resistance is to be Catholic, accept the Apostle's Creed whether an Apostle or other men wrote it, since it summarizes the lived faith anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be considered a summary or σύμβολον of the faith.

No conspiracies.

And the condemnation by Councils of contrary positions ('let him be anathema' and such things) is not different from the Church claiming to have the true faith: indeed, if you have a false faith you indeed are going to hell. There is nothing sinister at work. Why it is seen as sinister is people who aren't of the Church have an aversion of dogmatic statements, because Scripture can be interpreted by the invidual, and after all, you could be wrong? At least, that's what's behind the aversion at least implicitly—otherwise describing those who believe in a false religion as going to hell is not bad, but charitable toward all who would believe likewise.


What was it about the death of Jesus that allows God to forgive us? I've heard many people state that it was the punishment inflicted by the Romans that allows God to forgive us. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

How can a man suffer for a short while here on earth in order that a divine being have the right to forgive sin?

What is the framework of substitutionary atonement that makes Christ's death effective?

Let's start with your question title. For the sake of argument let's turn it around and ask "Why would God not be allowed for forgive us?" The problem lies in God's idea of justice. We could spend a lot of time one this one, but let's keep it it simple:

  Isaiah 61:8 (ESV)
  For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong [...]

In order for Him to actually be just, he has to administer justice. In order for justice to be adminstered the proper recompense has to be made for any wrong-doing. We know that the only way to pay for sin is death:

  Romans 6:23 (ESV)
  For the wages of sin is death [...]

So we have to die. Or somebody has to die for us. The only person qualified to do that is Christ. The why is a subject for another question. Let's skip to what Christ did. When he was on the Cross he took upon himself the full wrath of God against all our sins.

  Isaiah 53:4-5 (ESV)
  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

God chose to crush Him. The pain inflicted by the Romans was nothing compared to the weight of that wrath. Even humans can endure the torture of crucifixion for the amount of time Christ did ... longer in fact. The difference was that while the physical act was in progress he also bore an infinite amount of punishment from His own Father. How does that work out for those who believe in Him?

  Romans 5:9 (ESV)
  Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

To round this out I would point out that from a Reformed Protestant perspective, the notion that anything the hands of men could inflict upon Christ, no matter how brutal the Romans were could do anything to change God's ability to do or not do something is considered heretical. What Christ endured at the hands of the Romans an in crucifixion is both symbolic of a spiritual reality that was going on behinds the scenes, but also real in that that it put the rulers and authorities of this world to open shame while at the same time setting the stage for his physical resurrection to demonstrate his victory over death.

  Colossians 2:14-15 (ESV)
  [God] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.


What is the difference between a professing and a non-professing Christian with regards to their faith, beliefs, etc? I have come across these terms many times but didn’t really come to understand the difference between the two.

Is it that a non professing Christians stopped believing in Christianity or is it that they have some other view from mainstream Christianity?

The word professing means "to declare openly". So a "professing Christian" is one who declares their faith openly. This leads to the conclusion that the opposite of a professing Christian is one who does not announce his or her faith. They may believe and practice their Christianity in private.

Christianity Today recently divided Christians into five categories: Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private and Cultural. Page 4 of the article gives the characteristics of each type. (Not all would consider every one of those five to be true Christians).

Not all those who profess Christianity necessarily actually adhere to its beliefs. This has led some to adopt the term "professing Christians" for those who outwardly declare their belief while not actually adhering to it. There is some support for this usage in the dictionary definition given above. In that case "professing Christians" are contrasted with "true Christians", meaning those who practice their belief as well as declaring it. True Christians (in this usage) may also actually profess their faith.


How do we know that Judas was a "wealthy landowner"? In an interview that the New York Times had with the author Amos Oz, there is a mention of Oz's interest in the New Testament, "which began when he was a 16-year-old, living on a kibbutz and spending his evenings in the library, reading the gospels." We then hear about Oz's thoughts on the Judas Iscariot figure:

  [Oz] saw some glaring inconsistencies. Judas was a wealthy landowner, so why did he need those 30 pieces of silver, equivalent, Mr. Oz said, to no more than $600 today?

This perturbed me since I do not remember ever reading that Judas Iscariot was a "wealthy landowner," despite having had a lot of exposure to the New Testament over the years. The only link between land and Judas that I could think of was the episode at the end of his life where he dies and the blood money is used to purchase a potter's field. I also tried searching for "Judas" on Bible Gateway; the only result that seemed relevant was in Acts 1:16–19:

  (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

To me, this is at best ambiguous. That "the reward of his wickedness" was the means with which Judas acquired the field implies to me that Judas was only able to buy this field because of the blood money. Furthermore, this does not shed light on Judas' prior financial position.

Am I missing something in my reasoning (both in terms of the text of the New Testament itself, and in terms of relevant historical knowledge or traditional interpretations), or is my scepticism towards Oz's reading justified?

As you have already noted in your reading, there is no biblical basis for Judas Iscariot as a wealthy landowner, at least prior to purchasing the field, as he does in Acts of the Apostles.

Contrary evidence is found in John 12:6, since a wealthy landowner would scarcely need to be a petty thief:

  John 12:6 (NIV): He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

It is equally unconvincing that a wealthy landowner would leave it all behind to follow Jesus on foot and share his privations, but then betray his master for what, to a wealthy landowner, would have been a small amount of money.  The clearest modern non-fiction 1 reference to Judas as a wealthy landowner is in the Urantia Book,  which provides what can only be described as a highly imaginative biography of the unfaithful disciple.

Amos Oz, the subject of the interview referenced in this question, is a novelist. He describes Judas Iscariot as a wealthy landowner but does not tell us the source of his information, although no doubt this factoid would make a good theme as part of his novel about Judas.

1In describing the Book of Urantia as 'non-fiction', I make no value judgement, but simply follow convention used in describing all scripture, as Urantia appears to be.


When and for what reasons does the Pope have the right to legitimately excommunicate members of the Church? Please explain me the teaching of the Church on the subject of validity of papal excommunications.

I’ve met one priest who holds that popes can only excommunicate members of the Church for real and grave reasons, and any excommunications for absurd, political, not genuine, or otherwise non-substantiative reasons is null and invalid, even if officially declared by the Pope.

Is such a statement correct? Are there any official documents on the subject?

Or is it true that the Pope can legitimately and effectively excommunicate any member of the Church for whatever reason?

In such a case, is the following excommunication valid and is anyone who mentions in a word or thought Pope Alexander VI in danger of excommunication, or maybe even has already incurred excommunication latae sententiae?

Because, according to Wikipedia, Pope Julius II said:

  I will not live in the same rooms as the Borgias lived. He [Alexander
  VI] desecrated the Holy Church as none before. He usurped the papal
  power by the devil's aid, and I forbid under the pain of
  excommunication anyone to speak or think of Borgia again. His name and
  memory must be forgotten. It must be crossed out of every document and
  memorial. His reign must be obliterated. All paintings made of the
  Borgias or for them must be covered over with black crepe. All the
  tombs of the Borgias must be opened and their bodies sent back to
  where they belong—to Spain.

One must be tried and judged guilty to incur a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication.
In that quote you give, where it says "I forbid under the pain of excommunication…," this refers to the conditions of a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication. One "incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law." (source).
Some Background on Excommunications
For those Catholics in his jurisdiction, a bishop can

perform a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication

or

declare that someone has excommunicated himself by having performed the excommunicable offense itself, in the case of latæ sententiæ excommunications.

For a recent example of latæ sententiæ excommunication that the bishop publicly acknowledged/declared, see the 2010 excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix, Arizona.

See also: "Who can excommunicate?"
However, a superior can annul the excommunication of an inferior, as then-Card. Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did for Bp. Joseph Ferrario's excommunications of the so-called "[Hawaii Six][4]" in 1991. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger's letter:

Now, a pope has no superior, save God alone. However, a subsequent pope can lift excommunications, as Benedict XVI did in 2009 for the Society of St. Pius X bishops whom John Paul II declared excommunicated in 1988.


When is it okay to curse people in the name of the Lord? 2 Kings 2:23-24

  From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road,
  some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here,
  baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”  He turned around, looked
  at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then
  two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

Not that I would consider doing so... except for that guy who cut me off this morning on the freeway. :)  This just comes across as against Christianity as I know it.

First off, "boys" is a very unfortunate translation here, as the original word properly means "youths" (teens/young men, not children.)  And a group of over 40 youths coming out to confront a single man with angry words is a lot more than simple "jeering".  Imagine the scene!  His life was most likely in danger.  (Remember when Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away because Ishmael was endangering young Isaac with his "teasing"?  The ancient Hebrews seem to have had quite the gift for understatement in these matters!)

Also, this wasn't just any man they were harassing.  This incident came right after Elisha witnessed Elijah's ascendance into heaven, when Elisha was granted an official status as the spiritual heir to Elijah.  In other words, he was the new prophet of God, as Elijah had been.  To harass him was to reject his authority as the emissary of God to Israel, and that is where Elisha is different from us.  He was a prophet of God, and he had the authority to call upon the powers of heaven in order to protect himself, as Elijah did.


How can I understand the rise of the Egyptians as a race in the Old Testament? The Old Testament states that God created the world and God created man.  We see the lineage of Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and so forth while the Hebrew nation is created.  Then, seemingly from left field, the Egyptians appear, and they are considered evil because they are worshiping multiple Gods and have enslaved the Hebrews, etc. This ultimately leads to the plague and the story of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt.

I am struggling with how to state this question, but here it goes: If God created all mankind, how did nations such as the Egyptians end up so far off course?  Would they not have been descendants of Abraham as well?

This does not seem to be covered by the Old Testament (much like the gap in Jesus' early years in the New Testament), so I am perplexed.  It almost seems as though they evolved on a separate path.  Can anyone point me to resources that would fill this gap?  Or have I missed a critical passage in the Old Testament somewhere?

From a Biblical perspective, the Egyptians would have descended from Noah, but not from Abraham.  Genesis 10 is considered the "Table of Nations" in the Bible as it details how the sons of Noah began to populate the earth.

The tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is also a very significant event.  God had commanded Noah (like He had Adam) to fill the earth.  The Tower of Babel was a direct act of disobedience by the people to not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.  God confused the language there in order to force mankind to obey Him and spread out across the whole earth.  The Egyptians were some of these people, no doubt.

The spreading out didn't totally resolve the issue, though, since now you had people all over the earth who had already rejected God, at least in part, at Babel.

Clarence Larkin has a very interesting chart detailing how the sons of Noah spread out over the earth.

So, there really isn' a gap at all.  It probably just isn't as explicit enough to make it obvious.


What are the main points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom? What were the main differences or points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom? Can anyone give a summary, please?

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I think there may be a false impression that there was a big difference between these two men. The impression is caused because Cyril was involved in deposing Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak. However, if you read carefully, it seems that Cyril was not personally against Chrysostom, but rather that Cyril (who was overly aggressive, bordering on cruel by nature) was merely tricked by enemies of Chrysostom to think of him as an Origenists. Origenists held the heresy that all people will be saved without anyone going to hell.  The difference between the two seems only circumstantial and by personality. Cyril was ready to censure and punish heretics and Chrysostom was for a time falsely accused as one.

When trying to read some of their works I noticed Cyril is really a very high level thinker that was seemingly brilliant with respect to understanding the trinity, so his impact seems limited to that subject.  There also seems to be less writings from Cyril extant. Chrysostom on the other hand is a less philosophical and more of a nuts-and-bolts Bible commentator. His commentary on Romans and Galatians seems close to a modern day protestant evangelical library.

So, from my limited knowledge of these two men, I do not find any real theological differences between them. They were very different people wrapped up in very different politics. Cyril seems to have had more power in the Catholic church, but Chrysostom seems to have been more influential and charismatic upon people at large.

Chrysostom is an interesting read, especially Romans and Galatians. Some of his works can be found here.

What I found interesting about Cyril is that in arguing for the trinity he opposed Nestorius who seemed to be trying to separate the nature of the God-Man into two separate units. To oppose Nestorius, Cyril had to emphasize the unity of the God-Man and in so doing he seemed that it was necessary to over emphasis the importance of Mary, in whose womb this unity was created.  I gather that later further elevations of Mary with Catholic history actually stem as an inadvertent unhealthy spin off from Cyril's good effort in opposing Nestorius. Like an accident resulting from a victory. Of course I am looking at things through a Protestant lens.


Verse that mention Jesus eating meat? My wife asked me this question last night, and I didn’t know the answer, so I thought I would ask it here.

The question:  Besides fish, is there any passage in the Gospels that directly mentions Jesus eating meat?

My assumption is that He would have followed Jewish dietary laws, but I couldn’t think of any specific passages off of the top of my head.

Jesus definitely ate lamb because lamb is eaten at the Passover festival.

  Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had
  to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make
  preparations for us to eat the Passover.”  (Luke 22:7-8, NIV)

A goat could also be used instead of a sheep for the Passover.

  The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you
  may take them from the sheep or the goats. (Exodus 12:5, NIV)

Jesus was a Jew and Jews are meat eaters. Except the Unclean Animals (pork,snake,shellfish etc.), Jews eat varieties of meat and Jesus was not an exception.


Jesus celebrated Jewish Passover; why Christians celebrate Easter, a different feast? According to the four Canonical gospels Jesus Christ and the apostles kept the Passover (John records three Passovers celebrated by Jesus: John 2:13, John 6:4, John 11:55 ); Why  Christians today celebrate a different feast that appeared c. 150 AD, almost one century and a half later?

Christians celebrate Easter because it marks the anniversary of Jesus' Resurrection, the sole reason Christianity even exists and the source of the joy of salvation for the Christian. It is the most important event in Christianity and, according to Christians, all of human history.

Passover is the oldest Jewish celebration. It celebrates the Exodus in general and specifically how the Lord's Angel of Death passed over the households with the blood of a lamb on its door posts, but proceeded into the households of the Egyptian and took the first born. Passover is also a sacrificial event. A lamb is slaughtered for every Jewish family, as God commanded.

Christian theology is rich with analogy about how the Passover represents Christ's death, which covers our sins and saves us from death. Easter is the completion of that theology, where even Christ, the perfect sacrifice, conquers death and rises to Glory.

Many Christians are not Jews. Every Christian I've heard of does not believe that sacrifice is necessary anymore. Christ was the final sacrifice. It seems odd that Christians would celebrate an event that has been superseded by another: Good Friday. Good Friday is the celebration of Christ's Passion (march to the Cross, in perfect submission to the Father). Tradition holds that this took place on Passover.

I suspect the wikipedia articles on Passover and Easter would be helpful.


How to identify the categories of a church? I was wondering

whether a church is Protestant or Catholic,
whether it is mainline or evangelical,
which branch (e.g. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists)  it belongs to,
which denomination (e.g. Presbyterian Church USA, Presbyterian Church in America) it belongs to.

Thanks.

Most churches identify themselves and their denomination pretty clearly. If a church has a sign outside it generally gives its full name, which usually includes the name of the denomination if it has one. For example a Catholic church called "Saint Anthony's" will usually have a sign saying "Saint Anthony's Catholic Church" outside, and the same for larger denominations like Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran etc.

The same is true of a church website, which generally gives the full name including denomination. It may also give the denomination under a page like "What we believe".

A lot of churches will identify as "Baptist", which probably tells you what you want to know but doesn't identify the denomination exactly, as there are lots of different flavours of Baptist. Their website probably identifies which association of Baptist churches they belong to, if any. Similarly for "Pentecostal".

If a church doesn't identify a denomination then it may be "non-denominational" which means it doesn't belong to any larger organization (though some non-denominational churches form themselves into groups). A church that calls itself "community church" or "Evangelical church" is often non-denominational.

Any church that doesn't identify as Catholic or Orthodox may usually be considered Protestant for practical purposes, although there are some churches that do not identify as any of those three.


What are the core differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christianity? I read an answer here which explained the difference between the various branches of the Eastern Church.
I was thinking as an extension, what is the difference between Eastern Christianity and Protestant Christianity, as both seem to reject the claims of supreme authority from the Catholic Church?
What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities?
Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?

To limit the massive territory of how Protestants differ from Orthodox, I'm going to filter it down a couple times.
First, I'm not going to include points that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree on that Protestants (typically) disagree with: that the Eucharist is the body, soul, and divinity of Christ; that Mary is the Mother of God; Apostolic Succession; iconography; sacraments; communion of the saints; rejection of the Protestant solas; contemplative prayer & mystical theology; etc. The reason for this is that you can learn about all these points just from reviewing the Catholic-Protestant debate.
Second, I'm not going to include points that Protestantism and Catholicism agree on that Orthodox disagree with or don't share: original sin, the entire Augustinian framework, the strong emphasis on scholastic theology, a general emphasis on the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion rather than the Incarnation as the locus of salvation, some degree of reticience around hesychasm & Palamian theology, filioque, etc.
I could be wrong, but once you cross out all that stuff, I think all you're left with is the Pope, in Catholic understanding the principle of unity of the Church. Of course, Orthodox and Protestants "agree" on this in completely different ways, since Protestants reject the Orthodox understanding of apostolic succession that the Catholic papal ecclesiology requires, so I would be hard pressed to call this a point of true agreement.


Biblical reference that if someone is saved through someone else, that creates a "reward" or "treasure" in heaven? So, I'm trying to find a passage which I believe exists somewhere in the Bible (possibly written by Paul, but maybe not), where the writer rejoices in those who have been saved through his works (teaching/preaching) and goes on to say that it will be credited to him. I have tried many combinations of phrases but I'm starting to think my memory fails me on that.

Can anyone guide me to the passage or authoritatively say that it doesn't exist?

There are rewards promised in the Bible.

"Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each
person according to what they have done. (Revelation 22:12, NIV)
The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they
will each be rewarded according to their own labor. (1 Corinthians 3:8, NIV)

According to Bible scholars, there are Five Crowns in Heaven.

Crown of Righteousness - for those who wait for the Lord's appearing
Incorruptible Crown - for those who discipline themselves
Crown of Life - for martyrs
Crown of Glory - for the faithful leaders
Crown of Rejoicing - for those who win the souls

Our interest here is on the Crown of Rejoicing. This crown is reserved for those who win the souls to Christ.

For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in
the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? (1 Thessalonians 2:19, NIV)
Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and
those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and
ever. (Daniel 12:3, NIV)

So, if you want to receive the Crown of Rejoicing, start bringing people to Christ. May God bless you.


Abraham tries to sacrifice his son. Is exploiting a human a moral behaviour? The story of Abraham is talking about a man, who is punished by God to victimize his son, to prove his faith (Gen 22:1–19).  Abraham decides to follow his God by killing his own son. But at the last moment, God says 'Stop', and accepts an animal as sacrifice.

Blind obedience seems to be the main value, taught by this story. Do, what the authorities tell you! However, this is totally against our modern ethics: Killing a person, just to prove something, is considered evil.

Now the victimization did not actually take place in the story, but Abraham is praised for doint, what he was told. So does blindly following God justify everything?

You could say that this is just a Jewish story, from the Old Testament, but the story is repeated later, whith different roles: God is victimizing his own son, Jesus, to prove his faith in man. For the parallels, see: Mark 1:11, Romans 8:23, and John 3:16.

But how can the sacrificing of a human be considered a moral behavior? I was taught that instrumenting a person, using somebody like a thing, exploiting somebody is the root of all evil.

Do moral laws that apply to humans not apply to God (even though he created man after his own image)? Did he create moral laws for humans that he does not uphold?

The main question is, as stated in the headline: Is it moral to sacrifice your son in order to grant favor with God?

Let's lay some foundation from the start. (All scripture NIV)

God and Abraham had quite the relationship. God promised Abraham a son who would become a great nation (Genesis 17:15) even when he was 100 years old and his wife was 90. Abraham believed God and God provided him a son who was named Isaac (Genesis 21:2).

Isaac was the son God has promised Abraham, but as a test of Abraham's faith God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar as an offering to God (child sacrifice was a common ritual among pagans in that time period). From the very beginning of the passage the author of Genesis tells us that this is a test of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:1). This was an unusual thing to do; however, it allowed God to show his faithfulness and also Abraham to show his faith in God. It's unclear to me from the passage whether Abraham believed that God would provide the sacrifice or if he knew that God could raise the dead (Gen 22:8, Hebrews 11:19).

The final verses in the passage say (Genesis 22:15-18):

  15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Faith is the key here, not blind obedience.

Much like Abraham was willing to give his own Son. God, the better Abraham, gave his own son to die for our sins. We see in the context of the New Testament that Abraham's sacrifice of his son was foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. The parallels are nicely illustrated in the following table:

Isaac (Genesis 22)                         Jesus

Only son of promise (v. 2)                 Only begotten of Father (John 3:16)

To be sacrificed in Moriah (v. 2)          Sacrificed in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3:1)

Considered dead by father for              Dead for three days (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
three days (v. 4)

Carried wood for his own sacrifice (v. 6)  Bore his own cross (John 19:17-18)

Submitted willingly to father (vv. 6, 8)   Submitted willingly to Father
                                           (Matt. 26:39)

Raised from altar, his life spared by      Raised from the dead by
the power of God                           the power of God (Rom. 6:4)

Now, from the very beginning God's people has brought sacrifices as payment for their sins (Genesis 4:4 (Abel), 8:20 (Noah)). Later God mandated that Israel make sacrifices for atonement (Exodus 29:33,36).

Unfortunately these were imperfect offerings and were not sufficient to cover the sins of the people. They needed a better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:9-10). Christ was a perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Hebrews 9:11-14:

  11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

This is not about modern day morals about God keeping his promises to Abraham and his people. God promised Abraham that "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky" and "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed." The initial outpouring of this blessing was through the formation of the nation of Israel. However the perfection of this blessing was through the death of Christ and God granting us as Christians the status of Abraham's descendants.
Galatians 3:29:

  29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is why Christ died, so that we might be children of God. He was a perfect sacrifice for our sins as foretold in the life of Abraham and Isaac. In the same way that God is a better Abraham, Jesus is a better Isaac. In the same way that Israel were Abraham's (and God's) children through the line of Isaac, we are God's (and Abraham's) children through Jesus.

Finally you address a moral concern about human sacrifice. This is an interesting question. For one thing I think it's to let us know that God takes this seriously.
Romans 8:31-34:

  31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

The second reason I have is this one, Isaiah 55:

 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
     neither are your ways my ways,”
        declares the LORD.
 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow
    come down from heaven,
  and do not return to it
    without watering the earth
  and making it bud and flourish,
    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
    It will not return to me empty,
 but will accomplish what I desire
    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy
    and be led forth in peace;
 the mountains and hills
    will burst into song before you,
 and all the trees of the field
    will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the juniper,
    and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
 This will be for the LORD’s renown,
    for an everlasting sign,
    that will endure forever.”

Essentially, God is not bound by our human laws and morals; his ways are not our ways.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have anyone recognized as a "prophet", or what kind of titles do they use? I was looking for information about the founders of Jehovah's Witnesses. It looks like some notable early people were the founder Charles T. Russell and then Joseph F. Rutherford who was the president after Russell's death.

The material at Jehovah's Witnesses websites (here, and here) however does not provide a lot of information on the titles these or other leaders were referred by, or how their statements or writings were viewed.

Example from paragraph 7 in an article titled "Methods of Preaching—Using Every Means to Reach People" (located here):

  The second event was the death of Brother Russell on October 31, 1916.
  Thus, The Watch Tower of December 15, 1916, announced: “Now that
  Brother Russell has passed beyond, the sermon feature [in the
  newspapers] will be discontinued entirely.” Although this avenue of
  preaching came to an end, other methods, such as the “Photo-Drama of
  Creation,” continued to have great success.

Example from an article titled “When Are We Going to Have Another Assembly?”, located here:

  During his visit, Brother Rutherford encouraged these faithful ones
  very much with two motivating talks at the convention and five
  lectures that were broadcast on the radio.

The only reference to a title I have found so far is "brother".

Questions to JWs:

Do you use any other titles ("Reverend"/"Prophet"/"Elder"/etc.) when
referring to those who are currently, or have been in the past, in
high standing in your organization?
Do you consider anybody currently alive, or anyone who has been on
earth since Jesus, to be a prophet (someone put in position by God
to foretell future events)?
Do you consider any current or past JWs to have been infallible?
Do you have any books or other writings that are considered sacred
or infallible (excluding the Bible)?

Do you use any other titles ("Reverend"/"Prophet"/"Elder"/etc.) when referring to those who are currently, or have been in the past, in high standing in your organization?

"Brother" and "Sister" are the only titles we use if we're referring to a specific person. There are some "job titles" though, which refer to the responsibilities that person has. We don't use their "job title" unless we need to clarify their role to the person we're speaking to.

For example:

Governing Body member - one of the brothers who meets to discuss organizational changes and refinements in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Bethelite - A brother or sister who works full-time at a Bethel facility or remotely.
Circuit Overseer - the brother who visits and cares for about 20 congregations within a specific region along with his wife. He also appoints elders and ministerial servants.
Elder - A brother who cares for the needs of those in the congregation and handles judicial matters along with the other elders in the congregation. They can give talks at meetings.
Ministerial Servant - A brother who assists the congregation and the elders and also gives talks at the congregation meetings.
Pioneer - A brother or sister who works in the ministry full-time with a goal of at least 70 hours per month.

For more information, there's "Should Christians Use Religious Titles?"

  Do you consider anybody currently alive, or anyone who has been on earth since Jesus, to be a prophet (someone put in position by God to foretell future events)?

There were some prophets in the first-century congregations after Jesus ascended to heaven (1 Corithians 12:28), but nobody within Jehovah's Witnesses has ever prophesied. Following the completion of the Bible, there was no more need for prophets, as the scriptures make us "fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

  Do you consider any current or past JWs to have been infallible?

No. Infallibility belongs only to Jehovah God. Even Satan, a perfect angel, was evidently not infallible. Likewise, the apostles sinned at times. The Governing Body is also not infallible. Only through holy spirit can ones be protected from error, because holy spirit comes from God.

  Do you have any books or other writings that are considered sacred or infallible (excluding the Bible)?

No. Infalibility is once again reserved only for God's Word, the Bible. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to change over time, and our publications have never claimed infallibility. The Bible is our only source of truth.


Where in the Bible does it say "I will destroy those who destroy My land"? Where in the Bible does it say "I (God) will destroy those who destroy My land"?

You may be thinking of Jeremiah 16:18:

  I will repay them double for their wickedness and their sin, because they have defiled my land with the lifeless forms of their vile images and have filled my inheritance with their detestable idols.

(NIV)

That's the closest thing I was able to come up with on a BibleHub.com search.


Why do people interpret "Lucifer" as being Satan in Isaiah 14? In almost every case I've heard Isaiah 14:12-15 quoted or preached about, I'm told that these are the words of Satan in his rebellion against God.

Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV):

  12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
  morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
  nations! 13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
  heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also
  upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14I
  will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most
  High. 15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the
  pit.

For example, here.

Yet if you jump up to verse 4, it says

  That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and
  say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

and continues on through the previously cited verses.  So to me, a clear reading indicates that this it the Kind of Babylon saying in his heart,"I will ascend..."

I understand that the prophetical books are often open to interpretation, but I believe I'm missing something.  Why are these quotes attributed to Satan, when it appears that they're meant to be attributed to the king of Babylon?

It is commonly believed to be Satan.  "Lucifer", however, is a transliteration of the word in the Latin Vulgate.  So, basically, it's a transliteration of a translation.  Many more modern translations render the original word rather than following the traditional transliteration.

How you are fallen from heaven,    O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you
are cut down to the ground,    you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12, ESV)
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12, Biblia Sacra Vulgata).


In Catholicism is salvation by grace alone or by following the ten commandments and confession? I have many catholic friends, and lately I have been engaging them as to whether or not they believe that salvation is by grace alone. My one catholic friend, (who would label themselves as an  "Ecumenical charismatic Catholic" ) agrees with me completely that salvation is by grace alone. On the other hand, another catholic friend says that salvation is by following the ten commandments, and when asked what happens when we mess up, they responded, "That's what confession is for."

So my question is, is Catholicism really this broad, or is one of my catholic friends not really catholic?

Also, what does Catholicism actually say? Salvation by grace alone, or by works?

This is more complicated than you might expect, since Catholicism and Protestantism (which often takes a "salvation by grace alone" approach) can have slightly different approaches to concepts like justification, salvation, faith, grace, and merit.
In Catholic belief, salvation is achieved not in an instant, nor by predestination before birth, but over a lifetime. Ultimately justification, which is "not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man"1, is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1987, quoting Romans 3:22)
Justification is not merited by the works of any human being, but by the death of Christ, and is granted to the believer at Baptism, "the gateway to the Sacraments":

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.

(Catechism, paragraph 1992)
Justification, however, does not ensure our salvation. Justification enables us to cooperate with the saving grace of God; but if humans do not cooperate with His grace, they will fall away from His love and may in the end come to reject him.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "we cannot ... rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. ... reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us" (paragraph 2005).
Works—that is, the good things that we do, impelled and strengthened by God's grace—do have a place in our salvation; but it is not precisely correct to say that "we are saved by works":

The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.

(Catechism, paragraph 2008, 2009, 2010; emphasis in bold added)
Thus, the belief of the Catholic Church is that neither "salvation by grace alone" nor "salvation by works" is true in itself; rather, salvation begins when God gives us His grace, which allows us, through His Son's love, to come to merit further graces and sanctification, and ends when, at the end of our lives, we can accept his offer of life with Him in heaven. The Catechism quotes St. Thérèse of Lisieux:

After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.... In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.

As far as what your friends are saying, each of them is correct in a sense, but incomplete. Surely it is grace, as I said above, which ultimately renews and sanctifies us, and which gives us the ability to merit salvation; but as I mention it is not entirely correct, or at least not entirely complete, to assert that "salvation is by grace alone". We must cooperate with God's grace.
On the other hand, following the Ten Commandments—the "Old Law"—is not complete in itself, either. Jesus has given us much more.

According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it.

(Catechism, paragraphs 1963, 1966)

1 Council of Trent, cited in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1989.


How did early "street evangelization" differ from the modern practice? Biblical "street preachers" gathered interested and/or interactive crowds, often followed by mass conversions. We could conceivably chalk some of this up to the "signs and wonders" they tended to perform; but even on that note, it's oft-noted in scripture that belief precedes the signs and wonders. Hence, the crowds must have gathered first.

Even the Biblical preachers who worked no signs and were abrasive gained a lot of positive attention. Consider John the Baptist, who stayed in the desert/wilderness and told everyone they were sinners -- folks went, presumably out of there way, into the desert to see him!

Modern street evangelists don't appear to garner many converts. They're commonly portrayed as lunatics and nuisances. And in general, they don't seem to gather the crowds of Biblical proportions, or even small crowds or anyone in most cases.

Why the difference? Is it cultural? Are the modern evangelists saying or doing different things? Were early evangelists more like the well-known motivational or expert speakers of today?

Is there sound evidence to suggest that the Biblical "street preaching" was a normal means for content/news delivery? And/Or was their delivery different than a modern street-preachers?

If we look at scripture, we can see that great effort was taken to make the presentation of the gospel make sense within the cultural context of the day and people being reached.  Hebrews addresses the Jews in a way that focuses on how the old testament pointed to Jesus.  Roman's focuses on a logical presentation of core gospel from a context the Roman's could understand.

The Jews were frequently reached out to in synagogues where they went for religious learning.  Paul reached out to the Greeks by speaking in their place of religious discussion and used reference to their own alter to the "unknown god" to reach them.  The only thing that really remained consistent was the message of Truth.  The how and the where were changed to fit the time, the place and the people.

At the time, without the Internet or mass media, people got their news and learning locally, directly from talking with people.  Additionally, culturally, individual preachers tended to accumulate followings then rather than stand alone churches.  This explains John the Baptist's following.  He's not so much a parallel to a street preacher as he is to a Billy Graham convention or the lead pastor of a church.  (He actually primarily spoke out away from people and people came to him. [Matthew 3:1 - In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea])

Our methods of getting information is much different now and our culture far less personal.  The approach of street preaching doesn't fit the cultural perspective of the day and so it is dismissed as irrelevant since the methods being used are irrelevant to the culture.