Was baptism practiced before Christ? A simple word search for "baptism" in the Old Testament turns up no matches. However by the time John the Baptist shows up on the scene and starts dunking people and calling it "for forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) people seem to already have an understanding of what baptism is.

In fact, it seems there might have been other sorts of baptisms practiced at the time other than what John and later Jesus talked about. In particular the questions that pop up seem to be about who was doing the baptizing and on what authority. Nobody seems be too concerned about the act itself -- as if it was a well understood thing already.

Since the OT doesn't seem to speak of it and the NT jumps right in with everybody seeming to understand that such a practice exists (even if there is some question as to who/what/how/when), what happened in between the Testaments? Was baptism something that was done by anybody for any reason? If so by who and what for? Did the religious Jews of the time have such a practice?

Ritual cleansing was a common part of some Jewish sects around the turn of the era. One of the best examples of this (that I know of) comes from Khirbet Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)—where there were found several miqvot (sn. miqveh) used for a sort of "baptism." It is commonly held that the people living at Qumran were Essenes, and some have speculated that John the Baptist may have been a part of this group or one similar to it.

The Qumran community began slightly before the turn of the age and continued into the early 1st century CE, so it was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus. For a really nice intro to the Archaeology of Qumran, see Jodi Magness' The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There is a ton of literature from and about the "inter-testamental" period (usually referred to as the "Second Temple Period" by scholars). I'll point you to the great intro to the corpus by George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between The Bible And The Mishnah.


According to Catholicism, how can a Christian be freed from the concupiscence of the flesh and thereby possess a sinless body? After the fall of Adam & Eve from pride & disobedience, all mankind inherit original sin.

The Catholic Church teaches that the original sin can be removed by the Sacraments of Baptism but the stain of original sin or the concupiscence of the flesh still remains.

St. Paul describes this in Romans 7:15-24 as;

  "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

  "So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

In light of this dilemna, is there a way to remove concupiscence or wash-away the stain of sins in our bodies. Does Christ leave the Church with any teaching how to remove or wash away the stain of sins after we are cleansed by baptism?

Unfortunately, this is a tough challenge for many striving Christians as we can see from Scriptures, Christ has elevated the definition of adultery:

  "You shall not commit adultery," Christ spoke of adultery in the heart. "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28).

Now, I'm looking for Church teachings on how to remove concupiscence, as clearly based on Saint Paul himself as he overcame concupiscence when he exclaimed;

  "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

So, its not hopeless for us.

**My question is how did Saint Paul overcame concupiscence, and what does it mean when Saint Paul overcame concupiscence his body is sinless like Adam & Eve?

In Galatians 2:20, you quoted shows that faith in the Son of God plays the critical role in overcoming concupiscence.  Indeed, we know very well that Ephesians 2:8-9 provide the precise formula for spiritual salvation: we are saved by God’s gift of grace which is a function of faith:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - (Ephesians 2:8-9)

The verses naturally throw up two questions:

What is precisely the faith referred to in Ephesians 2:8?
Given that one’s deed (action or performance, as opposed to words) is not a prerequisite for God’s gift of salvation grace, how then does one say or proclaim this faith and to whom should one proclaim this faith?

We can argue that the Lord's Prayer, authored by no sinful mortal but by Jesus Christ himself, is the foremost proclamation of faith that is referred to in Ephesians 2:8;  that in praying the Lord’s Prayer daily, we are in fact proclaiming our faith or belief that the Son fulfilled the will of the Father. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer encompasses the teachings and exhortations of Paul the Apostle - (Romans 10:8–10, New KJV):

  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - (Romans 10:8–10)

An excellent source is the book "The Creed of Christ: An Interpretation of The Lord's Prayer" by Gerald Heard (1889 - 1971). A well-known author, philosopher and lecturer, Heard studied history and theology at the University of Cambridge, graduating with honours in history. He lectured from 1926 to 1929 for Oxford University's extramural studies programme. More information about him can be sourced from Wikipedia.

In the book, Heard describes The Lord's Prayer as the "real creed of Christianity." On page 6 of his book, he writes:

  At the heart of the Gospels there is, however, one other thing. Beside the new Commandments, beside the new Law, more lovely but far more exacting than the old, there is, put more briefly and tersely, a master-instruction, a set of key-rules as to how that Law may be kept. There is only one passage in the biographies more central than the Sermon on the Mount. It is more central because it is the root from which the action ordered by the Sermon must spring, because it shows the source of power without which the Sermon, the Beatitudes, remain a magnificent but impossible demand, a splendid promise which cannot be fulfilled. That passage is therefore rightly called by a supreme title, the Lord's Prayer.

Heard goes on to link faith and the Lord's Prayer (for example, as implied by the following passage, page 94):

  It is so against the grain of our present nature to realize that any right prayer must first and foremost be something which alters the self, a process whereby desire is transcended and the will transmuted."Bread of the Coming Day...My bread is to do the Will of Him Who sent me." How are we to do that will which is so different from ours? Are we not here involved in a vicious cycle? To live as God would have us live His eternal Life we have to do His will, but to do His will we have to become part of his Life. As long as we are self-willed, motivated by our wills, we do our wills, not His.

Through the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ, the Father declared us righteous in His sight. That is, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is our justification, the declaration of God that we are free of guilt and penalty of sin and acceptable to Him - (Romans 4:25, NIV):

  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - (Romans 4:25)

Our justification also marks the beginning of sanctification, a continual process of being made holy by the power of the Holy Spirit, a lifelong process that makes us more and more like Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the Lord's Prayer is a means to justify ourselves to the Father. Via the Lord’s Prayer, prayed daily, we are led by the Holy Spirit in our daily lives and become more like Jesus Christ – the precise outcome of sanctification.


David and Milkom wore a 75 lb crown, wouldn't that have snapped their necks? 1 Chronicles 20:2 says:

David took the crown from the head of their king --its weight was found to be a talent of gold, and it was set with precious stones--and it was placed on David's head. He took a great quantity of plunder from the city.

A talent of gold is equal to 75 lb, the question is, has archeology ever found crowns this heavy? Most crowns are not recorded in the Bible, so it seems like the author himself found it out of ordinary that a crown would weigh so much (that's why it was recorded). But is there any type of evidence that these type of crowns ever existed? Regardless, wouldn't such weight snap the kings neck?

To me it's just crazy that such a crown could have existed.

Addendum: While digging through the internet I found this: Can One Carry Heavy Things on Their Head Pain-Free? A Review of Geere 2010.

Apparently in rural places of Earth people carry well beyond 75 lb on their heads all the time... Ok, so one question out of the way, now, is there any evidence for such crowns ever made?

First, lets tone down the rhetoric. 75 pounds won't snap anybody's neck — unless of course it is in motion, in which case 75 grams would work too. I've personally had occasion to lift a lot more than that with my head and the neck (even un-excersised) is a pretty strong bit of muscle. In fact in much of the world carrying heavy loads is something you do with your head.

In other words no, managing a crown that heavy would not even have been particularly difficult, much less dangerous. I probably wouldn't have wanted to wear one all day, but for special occasions it is quite a reasonable possibility. Body mechanics allow for it being quite possible.

Second, the weight of a talant was different at different times in history and in different countries. This suggests in this time and place it was probably a bit lighter than your estimate:

  More recent research suggests the “light” standard talent was 67.3 lbs. (30.6 kg). (NET Bible notes)

Admittedly this is more substantial than the 4.9lbs of St Edward’s Crown used in modern English crownings, but kings of old were more known for their strength in battle than modern queens are for their choice in fashion.

Searching for weights of historic crows is proving a bit harder. Their value is always calculated but not always their weight. Jewels are often more the point than the raw metal involved. 60 some pounds of metal does seem a bit unwieldy, but if you're using it only for very special occasions and sitting straight as a ramrod in your throne for show anyway, then I could see it giving the right ambiance.


What's the Mormon view of Freemasonry? I've got the idea from somewhere that Mormons aren't allowed to be freemasons. Is this true? If so, what is the reasoning?

I think I've heard allegations of similarity between Freemasonry and some Mormon temple activities (neither familiar to me). How are such claims answered by the LDS church?

Related: How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?

First question:

Mormons can be Masons, and in fact many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Masons. In the early days of restoration, political control of the local Masonic lodge was part of the contention between Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois and their neighbors. The political role that Masonry played at that time contributed to the assassination of church leaders Joseph and Hyrum Smith. When the next church president Brigham Young led the Saints to settle the Mountain West of the United States, they did not immediately establish a Masonic lodge. Rather, the lodge was established by the first groups of non-Mormon settlers, and played a part in the political establishment of Salt Lake City as a counter-point to the Mormon majority. That Masonic lodge excluded Mormons from joining until the mid-twentieth century. In this environment, some Church leaders saw the Masonic groups as being anti-Mormon and discouraged members from joining. As far as I know, this was never official Church policy.

Second question:

As stated earlier, many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Freemasons. When Joseph Smith introduced the temple endowment in Nauvoo, one leader referred to the practice by letter as a restoration of "True Masonry". Though early Mormons used Masonry as a template for restored temple worship, there are significant differences between the two sets of ordinances.

As a teenager active in the Mormon faith, I was interested in joining the local Masonic lodge. My father encouraged me to wait until after I had attended the Mormon Temple to see if I still felt like I needed anything more. I still have an interest in Masonry, but don't have much time for additional fraternal organizations outside of my service in the LDS Church, professional groups, kids sports teams, etc. However, I know faithful Mormons who are Masons. They find that both ceremonies share some common metaphors, but play very different roles in their lives.

There are two really good articles on this topic in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, available here:

Freemasonry in Nauvoo
Freemasonry and the Temple


What is the biblical basis for ascribing theological worth to "human dignity"? I was reading an interesting article suggesting that "Christians" should embrace economic freedom, and was rather taken by the following paragraph:

Full article at http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/

  We are told in Scripture that the righteous care about justice for the poor.14 Christians believe that poverty is an affront to human dignity. Justice means enabling the poor to elevate their dignity by helping them escape the trappings of poverty. There is no other way of organizing society that has lifted more people out of poverty than global markets which are supported by economic freedom. - See more at: http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/#sthash.EHH8yf5d.dpuf

I left the footnote (14) in there specifically, because I am aware of the Scripture that would support that claim.  The sentence right after it -

  Christians believe that poverty is an affront to human dignity.

however, doesn't have a footnote.  I agree about justice - but dignity is not necessarily justice. They are different ideas. And, to be clear, it is a both widely accepted (you really can't go through seminary without hearing it, especially from the more liberal side of the campus), and frankly, it seems pretty obvious.

That said, I'm not sure I could make that case from Scripture.  Pastorally? Yes.  Psychologically? Sure.  Spiritually? Sounds good to me.  But, scripturally, I'm trying to understand where "we" got the idea that human dignity is inherently part of the Gospel message.

Indeed, you might even say (and I can't possibly comment on that) that total depravity and the universality of sin would, in practice contradict it.

Again, please do not read into what I'm saying - I'm not arguing it's not.  I'm just trying to understand the basis behind it.

So, what am I missing?

Ok, this is going to be more of a logical argument that's a bit jumpy and I don't have all of the scripture in mind, but there is scripture underpinning the ideas here:

Postulates

We are created in the image of God. As such human dignity is established as a part of our pre-fall state
Poverty exists because of the broken relationship between God, the self, the creation, and other men.
Our job as Christians is to be the restoration. Healing broken relationships is part of that job.

Connections

Because Poverty is part of the fall, and our dignity is established based on a pre-fall standard, much link sin, poverty is a concept driven by the fall and is an affront to our dignity.

Because our job as Christians is to work to restore the relationships that the fall broke, confronting poverty and restoring the folks who are in poverty (restoring their relationships with the creation, their fellow man, and most importantly God), is a prime concern of Christians.

Loose Scriptural Basis

Caring for the poor, and providing them with dignity is an emphasis both of the law given to Israel and also a primary focus of the ministry of Jesus and the New Testament church. Jesus repeatedly gives wealthy people the instruction "sell all you have and give your money to the poor." The Old Testament law goes on for pages about widows and orphans, provides clear instructions for not harvesting part of your crops so that the poor may go an glean from the leavings. One of the very first things that the apostles do following the ascension of Christ is to appoint deacons to care for the widows, orphans and other poor folks.

Summary

Because God cares so deeply about the creation that is made in his image, and sees poverty as an affront to our dignity, he is very concerned about making sure that the poor among his people (before, during and after the ministry of Christ) are well cared for.


What does the bible say about homosexuality? I was recently listening to a podcast and the preacher said that he has looked through the entire bible and could not find anywhere where it says that homosexuality was a sin.

Where does the bible stand on this? What verses talk about it?

There's an entire Wikipedia post regarding this subject.  (Thus it's my source as it's easily referenced.)
1
Leviticus 20:13 is the first:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a
woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put
to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

2
Genesis 18-19 has the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where homosexuality was a big part of their culture.  The town was destroyed for their wickedness.

Genesis 19:4-5
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city
of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to
Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us
so that we can have sex with them.”

Ezekiel even talks about this event here:

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

These verses clearly state that Sodom was destroyed because of they were haughty and did detestable things.  While Ezekiel isn't clear which detestable things were done, the Genesis account only indicates rampant homosexuality (possibly alluding to public, homosexual orgies) as the cause for this phrase "detestable things".
This also echos the Leviticus scripture showing that God finds homosexuality detestable.
Looking at the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, we have to either conclude it was homosexuality that was detestable, or something that was not written about.  But why would Moses have included homosexuality in Genesis if it weren't the "detestable thing" for which God was destroying the city? In fact, if it wasn't one of the primary reasons for God destroying the cities, why write about it at all? It simply becomes another attribute of the city.
It's hard (if not impossible) to separate the destruction of Sodom from the concept of homosexuality.
3
In the New Testament, there is Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the
same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Then there's 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10, which refer to sexual sin on a more general basis.  Those previous three are pretty solid references, though.


According to the Catholic Church, who taught Moses the Law? Who taught Moses the Law? (Meaning the Law given to him on Sinai, that he would teach to all of Israel.)

Judaism says it was angels. What does the Catholic Church say?

TL:DR: Regarding the old law, God gave the law to his people.

In the case of delivering the Law to Moses at Sinai, Exodus 19-24 is pretty clear on who delivered what.

For a longer answer to your question, @Marc has suggested Covenant and Kinship by Scott Hahn.  I second that recommendation, because as Marc points out (in a comment) the answer to your question is related to Covenant theology.

Who gave the law to Moses?

Beyond the scripture cited in the TL:DR, the Catechism of the Catholic Church articles 1949 - 2051 discuss divine law, moral law, the old law, and the new law.  Within the discussion of the old law it is pretty clear that the simple answer is that God gave the law to Moses.  That is the teaching of the church.

I recommend reading those articles to take your understanding of the Church's stated belief beyond a sound byte.  It's a shorter read than Hahn's book, but it's not as in depth.  Each page and each article have footnotes indicating the scripture, theologian, or church father supporting a presented belief.  That notation is very helpful, as it provides fertile ground for further reading and understanding of the position.

The law in general:

  1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them
  interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural
  law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of
  the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

  1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus
  Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law,
  for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the
  end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
  (Romans 10:4)

The Old Law

  1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his
  people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of
  Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to
  reason.  These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of
  salvation.

  1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral
  prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of
  the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in
  the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God
  and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a
  light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and
  ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

  God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their
  hearts.1

Notes:
Since you did not provide a source for "what the Jews teach" in terms of angels delivering the law, I will not address that.

1 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 57, 1: PL 36, 673.


Did the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith ever explain why they thought God could not be the author of sin? Ch3 of the W.C.of F. says "neither is God the author of sin".

One can make something which is entirely different from oneself. e.g. if someone makes a cake they do not become a cake themselves.
  If God had a holy motive why Jesus alone should fulfil the Law {total obedience} then God might have a holy motive to withhold from man the grace to obey His Law/command.
   I can find no place where the writers of the W.C.of F. tried to justify the statement "neither is God the author of sin". Did they ever try to justify it?

The Free Prebyterian online copy of the Westminster Confession quotes three verses in support of the statement :

neither is God the author of sin,b

Free Presbyterian Church Documents
The first two are from James :

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:13
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17

The third is from John :

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
I John 1:5

I was not certain but @curiousdanni notes below that these texts are original to the Westminster Confession and are not added by the Free Presbyterian website.


How should Christians act toward non-Christians? How should Christians act toward non-Christians?

One example I have found is 2 Corinthians 6:14 [KJV].

  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
  fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
  hath light with darkness?

I believe this is saying not to marry non-Christians.

Are there any other instructions on how to behave towards non-Christians in the Bible?

They are our neighbors and we should love them as ourselves.

  John 13:34-35 (NIV)

     34  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

If it turns out that they are our enemies then we should love them all them more.

  Matthew 5:43-44 (NIV)
      43  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,


Is there a dogmatic or theological (yet not dogmatic) justification for kneeling before a statue/icon of the Virgin Mary? We Catholics keel when praying in front of an icon representing God (e.g. a statue of Jesus, or a crucifix as in some confessionals), or during an Eucharistic Adoration. However, some people also kneel in front of a statue depicting the Virgin Mary (or that of some saints).

I do understand that, theologically speaking, proper veneration of Mary and saints does not represent idolatry, but kneeling seems to be, in my opinion, something reserved for God alone. As Philippians 2:10 says:

  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth

So, beyond a justification based on mere cultural practices or habits, is there a dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium, or a theological justification (yet not dogmatic) stating that kneeling to venerate Mary is a "valid" practice? As far as I understand, dogmatic teachings only pertain to issues of faith and morals, meaning the justification for it might not be found there.

There are two questions (here and here) which are related to the issue of veneration of saints/Mary, and of bowing to Mary. But there are not specific in details regarding kneeling (which in my view is much stronger than bowing).

Short Answer

Theological & Dogmatic reference:(Summary)

  Lumen Gentium 66
  CCC966
  Archangel Greetings bowing to Mary's Divine Motherhood. (Luke1:28)

  4.The 4th Dogma of the Assumption

  Other testimonies & revelation;
  i. Pre-Assumption Apparition, Ven. Mary of Agreda refer to Mary as "Queen of
    the Church.
  ii. St.James the Greater saw Mary "beheld by a great light" on a pedestal.
  iii. St. Therese of Liseaux said Mary is truly Queen of Heaven & Earth.
  Biblical Reference (Revelation12:1)

Church Father teaching Mary is the First Tabernacle & the New Ark of the
Covenant.

Explanation :

The simple answer is the people in the Old Testament know the customary greetings to a King and Queen.

Human showing highest respect for the King & Queen of this world show it by physical gestures of bowing and kneeling.

We are not talking of ordinary King & Queen here.

Mary is the Mother of the King of Kings.

The Catholic Church acknowledge Mary as Sovereign Queen of Angels, Queen of Heaven & Earth.CCC966

  966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

The key word is Mary is "exalted". How high is Mary's exaltation?

  “Placed by the grace of God, as God’s Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church.” (LG, 66).

An Archangel who belong to Choir of Cherubim who knows the "secrets of God" showed us how to greet a Queen Mother in Luke1:28.

  Douay-Rheims Bible

  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Archangel Gabriel was sent to deliver a message only to the Theotokos. The greetings of HAIL! Full of Grace reveals that Angel Gabriel saw the state of soul of Mary and by virtue of understanding the message of God in fullness, Angel Gabriel knows the meaning of Mary becoming the Mother of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, had to acknowledged the awesome majesty of the Queen Mother and had to bowed down.

In this Mary was troubled, She doesn't know that the state of Her soul was "full of grace" only an angel can see that. But the greatest mystery is, there's one fallen angel who is also a Cherub seeing his fellow Archangel bowed down realized he must bowed down too.
Genesis3:15 comes again to satan's mind and fear engulfs his very being.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

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

Mary became the First Tabernacle of God. Her Most Pure Womb in the Book of Kings exclaimed "The highest heavens cannot contain of God whom you carried in your womb".

Would you kneel before the Tabernacle of God, the New Ark of the Covenant?

The 4th Dogma of Assumption, the Catholic Church proclaims Mary as the Sovereign Queen of all. Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.

Mary's "Pre-Assumption Apparition" the first Marian Apparition acknowledge by the Church to St.James the Greater in year 40AD while still living showed Mary already is exalted in a glorified form. The Woman is now standing on a pedestal a jasper column higher than all men and sorrounded by angels.

St James narration is an apparition and not a bilocation. Why? A bilocation is attributed to the saints who appears in their usual physical form. But Mary appeared in a "ghost like" form ,in the words of Ven.Mary of Agreda "beheld by a great light" . St.James the Greater saw Jesus "resurrected body" so he can attest the similarities of Mary's appearance to Jesus.

For full story of "Our Lady of the Pillar Apparition"

  Venerable Maria of Agreda who was shown the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary in detail, writes in her Mystical City of God that St. James, brother of St. John, whom Our Lord called “Sons of Thunder”, had a special devotion to the Blessed Mother.
  Becoming the apostle of what today is Spain, Saint James was having a hard time evangelizing the northern region of Zaragoza. One night, as he prayed asking help for his plight, he suddenly beheld a great light in the midst of which he saw Our Lady surrounded by a multitude of angels.

  The interesting thing is that Mary was still living in Jerusalem at the time. But as queen of the Church, she was given to see all that concerned her Son’s work, and being shown the prayer of her devotee, had obtained from Jesus to help him in a special way.

On learning of their lady’s wishes, the angels in her retinue promptly built a throne of luminous clouds on which they sat their queen, and swiftly carried her across the Mediterranean, serenading her all the way.

  So now, the Blessed Mother consoled her son James, and assured him help for his endeavors. She asked him to build a shrine on the spot she appeared, and as a token of her help to the region, left a marble column or pillar topped by a small statue of herself holding her Infant Son.

  By the pillar, she left an angel to ensure the safety of the holy image until the end of time. According to ancient Spanish tradition, this apparition occurred on January 2nd, 40AD. - The Marvelous Story Of Our Lady of the Pillar

Now this is only here on earth, noticed the wordings Ven.Agreda she called the Blessed Virgin Mary "Queen of the Church".

And the Church teaches that Mary is the Woman in the Revelation12:1

  "* A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

Mary is the Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.

Now, knowing how the Old Testament people give reverence to the earthly King and Queen and by no less than an Archangel bowing to the Blessed Virgin Mary.Would it be fitting to bow and kneel before the Sovereign Queen the Mother of our Saviour, the King of Kings?

But in my posted comment I said, if you knew "who Mary is" in the eyes of God She deserves more than kneeling. She deserves our deepest gratitude and love acknowledging Her role as our "spiritual Mother"

Why? Jesus gave Mary to us as a gift, Jesus agonizing At the Foot of the Cross experience the great love & sacrifices of the Blessed Mother "from womb to tomb".Mary "still standing" did not abandon his beloved son in the greatest hour of sufferings. Mary had experience the greatest sorrows no earthly Mother can endure seeing His beloved son immolated.

Jesus precious last words to us pointed that more than kneeling to the Sovereign Queen, we must all BEHOLD Mary as our spiritual Mother. Jesus wants us to welcome Mary in our homes and especially into our hearts.

  "Son Behold you Mother"(John19:27)

  CCC969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

"Mary is more Mother than Queen"

  “It is true that Our Lady is Queen of Heaven and earth,
  but at the same time she is more Mother than Queen.” – St. Therese of Lisieux

It was also attested by the Patristic Fathers in the 1st Century Mary's two important title of inscription " Theotokos & Boetheia "

Patristic origins

  There are two inscriptions of the first centuries of Christianity in Greek related to the Virgin Mary: : θεοτοκος (Teotokos, Theotokos, Mother of God) and βοηθεια (Boetheia, the Helper). The Fathers of the Church referred to Mary as "βοηθεια". John Chrysostom used the title in a homily of 345, Proclus in 476 and Sebas of Caesarea in 532. After the Patristic period (5th century), other persons used it like Romanos the Melodist in 518, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius in 560, John of Damascus in 749 and German of Constantinople in 733.

  In the view of Fr. Johann G. Roten, SM, the invocation of Mary as Help of Christians is part of the oldest prayer addressed directly to Mary, the Sub tuum praesidium, which was found on a papyrus dating, at the latest, from the end of the 3rd century. Praesidium is translated as "an assistance given in time of war by fresh troops in a strong manner." - Mary Help of Christians (Wikipedia)

I like to focus on the Greek word Boetheia,the Helper.

  Boēthos is a noun made up of two words which mean (i) “cry out” and (ii) “run”. The related verb boētheō means “come to the rescue” or “supply urgently needed help”. (From HELPS word-studies.) Perschbacher gives the meaning of boētheō as “to run to the aid of those who cry out for help . . . “[2]

  The following is every verse in the New Testament where boēthos and its cognates appear[3]:

  In Matthew 15:25 and Mark 9:22-24, boēth– words are used where people were crying out to Jesus for help.

  In Acts 16:9, 21:28, 27:17 and Revelation 12:16, boēth– words are used where strong help and support were required.

  In 2 Corinthians 6:2, Hebrews 2:18, 4:16 and 13:6, boēth– words are used in the context of receiving divine help. - “A Suitable Helper” (in the Septuagint)

Apostolic and Patristic recognition in the first century of Christianity gave Mary the title Mary Help of Christians.

Now if you knew that Mary is the "Helper" the one who will run to your aid when you cry out for help, is kneeling enough?

As St. Peter run to Mary when he was caught in deep despair, and St.James the Greater called unto Mary too when caught in desolation.If we knew Mary is our Helper what gestures is appropriate, a physical gesture only? or will it involves our very heart acknowledging our deepest gratitude to Her as our Spiritual Mother.

St. Lukes had painted a Miraculous Image of Mary in the first century too the title of the paint attributed to Mary is the "Advocata Nostra".

From Apostolic to Church Father acknowledged Mary as our Helper,Theotokos and Advocate not to mentioned Her numerous titles.

Are we going to wait for the Fifth Dogma to be proclaim before we gave Mary the proper veneration and gratitude She rightfully deserves here on earth?

The Catholic Church like Mary is a humble church, it will wait for God's timing in bestowing Her a title that will be bind in Heaven. As we all know God's timing is always perfect.

Mary is our Co-Redemtrix, Advocate and Mediatrix.

We must not only express our deepest gratitude in physical gestures but most especially our reverence must come too, deeply in our hearts.


How, according to the Catholic Church, can God order genocide even though the Church has declared such a situation impossible? Quoting Veritatis Splendor:

  Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. (...) The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide, (...)"

Veritatis Splendor, 80

So I believe that we can say that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, genocide can never be ordered to be carried out by God and committing it is always evil.

Still, in the Bible we have examples of GodMoses (see comments) ordering His believers to commit genocide:

  But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God.

Deuteronomy 20, 16-18

This most obviously satisfies the definition of genocide, as stated by the United Nations:

  Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; (...)"

OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE (OSAPG)

There seems to be incongruity in Catholic teaching here. How does the Church explain the fact that while it declares it impossible for God to order genocide, such an order from God seems to be described in the Bible?

God makes plenty of commands that are recorded in Holy Scripture. Why would Deut. 20:16-18 be an exception?

The original Douay-Rheims translation of Deut. 20 prefaces this chapter with

  Lawful wars are to be undertaken with courage and confidence.

The war is lawful because it is defensive. It is to defend the people against the great spiritual threats of the idolaters, whom the Lord knows would tempt the people of God to violate the 1st Commandment.


According to Catholicism, does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty? Pope Francis said:

  Poverty is not inevitable! Source

But in John 12:8 Jesus said:

  You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

Does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty or help with it?

And if so, is it because faith, sacramental or prayerful life provides protection from demons who torture humans also through financial difficulties?

Note: I'm not asking if faith guaranties wealth.

According to Catholicism, does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty?

The short answer is no.

If it were that easy to avoid poverty, there would be no poor left in the world.

Monks take vows of poverty. Some lived in very real poverty such as Blessed Charles de Foucauld.

How many martyrs were dispossessed of their property before being tortured and killed.

Last but not least, we have the words of Our Lord in regards to the poor:

  You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." - John 12:8

Many of the saints were poor!

Our faith and trust in God can and will always help in dealing with real poverty, for our true hope should always be in Our Lord.

Just as St. Paul was not relieved of his thorn in his side (2 Corinthians 12:7–9), so how can we believe that by being confident in trusting and having faith in God will protect us from poverty and/or a lack of food? It can not.

  And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (KJV)

Even the example of the saintly Job as mentioned in Geremia’s answer is not an example maintained for the average individual. Life is very fragile at the best of times.

Our greatest form of poverty is sin itself and not the lack of material possessions or lack of food. Thus we are all poor in some sense. Serious sin will deprive oneself of one’s ultimate good (Beatific Vision) forever if not forgiven before one dies.


Were there women leaders in the early church? We have a lot of documents from early church fathers, who were as far as I'm aware always male, but is there any accounts of females acting in a leadership or authority role similar to that of the early church fathers in the same period, between 100 and 350 AD?

The role of deaconess was provided in the early Church.  There is a discussion of this in the answer to:

How were women to serve the church according to the Apostolic Fathers?

The Apostolic Constitutions declare:

  Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the
  ministrations towards women. For sometimes he cannot send a deacon,
  who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt
  therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of
  the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many
  necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall
  anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the
  deaconess shall anoint them.

But this was not a leadership role, as you suggest.  From Apostolic times, women were specifically excluded from assuming any sort of leadership role in the Church.  This is obvious from Paul's admonition that women should not even speak in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34).  The only possible exception might be the role of abbess, which developed in the 3rd century as monasticism took hold in Egypt and elsewhere.  Even here, though, a women's monastery (or "convent") required the occasional service of a (male) priest to administer the sacraments.


Why does Nephi believe he can keep all the commandments? I can't get the wording exactly right on this question, and it's gonna take some explaining.
Nephi says this about the Lord's commandment to get the brass plates,

  "for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (1 Nephi 3:7)

Later, when trying to keep the commandment to get the brass plates, he and his brothers failed twice, but he said,

  "As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us. Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord;" (1 Nephi 3:15-16)

Later he says,

  "And it came to pass that thus far I and my father had kept the commandments wherewith the Lord had commanded us." (1 Nephi 5:20)

His last words in the Book of Mormon are,

  "For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen."

It seems clear to me that every commandment can be obeyed. But it's very hard, especially to obey constantly. I'd like to know why was he able to do it? I believe at the root of that is the question: Why did he believe he could do it rather than believing he would eventually fail? The obvious answer is that it isn't his own strength, but the grace of God that makes this possible, but what makes the enabling power of the Atonement available constantly rather than "every so often"? I'm not sure how to believe that obeying the commandments is really truly all the time possible, and I think I'm misunderstanding the doctrine of grace.

Nephi was not perfect in keeping the commandments. In fact, in 2 Nephi 4 he cries out:

17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.
18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.
19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

(Emphasis added.) What follows is the beautiful Psalm of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:17-35) in which Nephi praises the Lord for his goodness and mercy and affirms his commitment to follow the Savior. Every commandment can be obeyed, but we fail again and again to keep all the commandments all the time. Yet, we can be perfected through the grace of Christ and his atonement as Moroni states in Moroni 10:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

(Emphasis added.) It is evident from the scriptures, that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is natural for men, to fail keeping the commandments (Mosiah 3:19), and God does not expect us to keep all commandments all the time perfectly. Jesus has done that work for us. What he asks us to do, is to do the best to keep his commandments and repent whenever we fail. Patience and perseverance in trying to do your best are much more important than beating oneself up over every little thing you do wrong (see Alma 42:29; 2 Cor 7:10). Yet we have the promise that

God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Cor 10:13)

(See also Alma 13:28.) Hence, we can overcome every sin through God's grace. All he asks us is to try the best we can and whenever we fail, to try again and continue. There's an excellent talk at BYU by Brad Wilcox about the topic of grace which explains this really well.


What does the chaining and locking of Satan in the bottomless pit for the millennial reign accomplish? In my study of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I am puzzled by the chaining, and the locking of Satan in the Pit for the millennial reign of Christ.
This question: According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign? is similar and has an answer that gives two reasons for  the millennial reign, but they do not seem to answer my question.
Here are some considerations that I have mulled over:

Satan is chained and locked in the pit, so that he can no longer tempt mankind.

Since Satan was defeated at the cross, then why is he loosed to participate in the battle of Armageddon?

Is the battle of Armageddon the final battle of the war begun in Heaven, and if so why then did God, give the one thousand year interlude in that battle?

Is the Battle at Armageddon to show Satan that even though he enlisted such a large number of mankind in his army that that was not sufficient to overcome the army of God?

Assuming that number 4 is true, then why does the judgment immediately follow Armageddon?

And finally, will Satan and all unbelievers have to bear the knowledge that their rebellion was such folly for the Eternity in the lake of fire?

Number 6 is as close as I have come to understanding this passage in the Revelation, but it still does not answer my initial question, of the purpose of the millennial reign, and why Satan is bound and locked in the bottomless pit.
From what I know of the Catholic faith they believe that the dead are put into a place known as Purgatory to await the final judgment, which gives a second chance to get into Heaven, but we protestants do not adhere to such a belief. As far as purgatory goes it would give a chance for those in purgatory to get into heaven while Satan was bound which seems a bit of a stretch to me, but as for Protestants it seems to serve no purpose for those who are already dead since their fate is sealed as far as I understand.
I can see a possible reason for Catholics but not for Protestants. Any ideas from any denomination are welcome.

Perhaps the simplest--yet most profound--reason for Satan's being chained for a thousand years is because God desires to prove to humanity once and for all that even with Satan out of the way, human beings will still reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ, thinking they are better off being masters of their own fate instead of subjects of the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14; 19:16).

In other words, at the end of the thousand years, no one can any longer legitimately blame only Satan for something that is deep within the heart of all of us; namely, our sin nature.

To be sure, Jesus entered time and space as the God-Man to destroy through his death and resurrection the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), but he did not enter time and space to destroy the sin nature of the creatures he created in His image. That is something each true believer needs to do of his or her volition as they put to death the works of their sinful nature (see, for example, Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5).

What the 10 servants of the nobleman in Jesus' parable said of their master in Luke 19 will also be on the lips of those who refuse to bow the knee to the reign and rule of Jesus on earth during the Millennium:

  "'We will not have this man to reign over us'" (vv.19 and 27).

When Satan is finally loosed from his captivity, he will have little trouble, then, in rallying troops around him in his ultimately futile attempt to depose by force the King of kings and the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ. King Jesus, in turn, will have no difficulty in defeating the prince of darkness and the father of lies, as well as all those who align themselves with him and with the beast and the false prophet. After their defeat, the unholy trinity will be cast into the lake of fire forever (see Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 20:14-15).

Only then will

  "'The kingdoms of this world . . . become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever' (Revelation 11:15 KJV).


Who is the object of the New Covenant and what are it's terms? I've asked this question to several people over the years, only professing Christians and particularly those who tout them selves as 'New Testament Christians'. And this is an important question as Mathew 26:28 tells us that this is the Covenant offered in Christs very own blood: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant (testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Any one with apt comprehension can identify the parties to this Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jeramiah 31, yet even more so for some one with legal background such as a contract lawyer the party and terms here specified are clad tight:

  Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
  Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
  Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
  Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

  Jer 31:35  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
  Jer 31:36  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Now this is repeated in Hebrews 8, as I had said. By expository bible study and exegeting this text to understand what Christ is affecting in his blood what do you all arrive at for the what, who, why, and how?

1. The Covenants of Men
When an agreement was reached about wages of a penny a day, Matthew 20:13, the word used is συμθονεο, sumphoneo (sun, together, and phoneo to speak strongly). The same word is used when two agree together on earth about any matter, Matthew 18:19. Another, stronger word is used when the Jews agreed together, in council, to cast believers out of the synagogue, John 9:22, or to conspire against Paul and to murder him, Acts 23:20 - συντιτηεμι suntithemi (sun, together and tithemi, to lay down or establish). Yet another word is used when the Jews 'covenanted' with Judas for thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus - 'ιστεμι, histemi (stand, set up, establish).
These are all agreements among men where parties negotiate and bargain and come to a conclusion.
None of these words are used, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, in matters of the New Testament.
2. The New Testament
Instead, the word διαθεκε diatheke (dia through and theke, a secure containment) is used thirty three times in the Greek scriptures. Tyndale, in his 1534 New Testament, translated this word by 'testament' thirty one of those times. The KJV translators have chosen, unusually, not to conform to Tyndale on this particular matter and have only called it 'testament' twelve times.
The word διαθεκε diatheke is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 9:17 where the writer says :

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The other types of agreement among men, above, are defined otherwise, as seen by the words used. But a διαθεκε diatheke, is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 17.
The Testament which the Holy Spirit conveys through the writers of the Greek scriptures concerns a Testator and it only comes into force when the Testator dies. In fact, it is even stronger than that - it is prevented from coming into force until the Testator is deceased.
3. The Object of the New Testament
The objective was made clear six centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem :

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: [Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 KJV]

This prophecy, originally delivered through Jeremiah, 31:33, promises two things : an internal rule of the heart from God himself (and, therefore, it must be of Spirit) and a shared inheritance, that is to say an inherited relationship between Deity and corporate humanity.
Inherited, of course, after the death of Another.
It promises a better rule than that of the legal commandment. It promises a better human existence than one in Adam. It promises a better communal worship than that of external ritual and earthly government.
4. The Terms of the New Testament
The terms are not temporal, they do not relate to this present world. It is an 'everlasting covenant' Hebrews 13:20. The promises are not dependent on man's works or man's abilities. It is not a covenant with man, at all. It is promised; it is assured; it is everlasting.
And, more - Hebrews 9:15.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

This testament is mediated. By the one mediator between Deity and humanity - Christ Jesus. There is no other name whereby men might be saved, than his name. He is the one who mediates it to every single needy soul who needs his mediation. And he does it personally - to each and every, single soul.
And by his mediation, the transgressions (which the first - 'old' - covenant could by no means remove) are thoroughly and utterly taken away by the shedding of his precious blood : Matthew 26:28 :

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

5. The Beneficiaries of the New Testament
The 'many' referred to by Jesus, above, are clearly they whom Jesus also described as :

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

. . . which is clearly not a matter of digestion, but of faith. And it is to 'he' - it is personal and individual, neither congregative nor corporate.
6. The Messenger of the New Testament
Mark makes it clear in the first verses of his gospel account that 'the beginning of the gospel' involves the ministry of John the Baptist (the baptism of repentance) and the coming of the one prophesied by Malachi - 3:1 -

... the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant ...

Jesus Christ, the Lord, come in flesh, is the Messenger of the Covenant, he is the Testator of the New Testament, He is the Meidator of the New Testament and his is the blood of the Everlasting Testament.
7. The Inauguration of the New Testament
The rich man who wanted to pull down his barns and build bigger, Luke 12:18, used the word apotheke to describe a containment secure against animals foraging or thieves stealing his agricultural wealth. Apo is a matter of dimension - it's big.
Jesus uses the word theke when he tells Peter to put up his sword in its theke, John 18:11. More likely than a sheath, is a secure containment at home, bearing in mind what Jesus said about bearing a sword. Put it in its secure box at home : is what I understand to be his exhortation, but whatever - it is a secure containment.
As to the Testament - the diatheke - the 'through' theke - I suggest a coffin  or a sepulchre is in view. A secure place to store a body until resurrection, is, I understand, to be the meaning.
The Testament comes into force through a securely contained body : in death.


Reasons many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT? As you can see from my 'autobiography' I am not particularly denominationaly religious but interested. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through twice and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through four times. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org).

I ask: what do you think are the reasons for many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?

There are likely scores of words which could summarize why many Christians do not read both Testaments with equal dedication and seriousness. They are lazy, indifferent, distracted, worldly, unspiritual, fleshly, uncommitted, ignorant, unschooled, illiterate (biblically), misinformed, spiritually nearsighted, infantile (milk drinkers, spiritually speaking), confused, and on and on.
Perhaps most significant in my opinion is a general lack of appreciation among Christians for the grand sweep of salvation history, from beginning to end. Scripture is, after all, one book, and while the Old Covenant in many ways looks forward to the fulfillment of its many shadows, types, and prophecies (both veiled and unveiled), the New Covenant, though different in many ways from the Old, is exactly that: NEW. The Old Covenant is filled with shadows and symbols; in the New Covenant the substance is Christ, the fulfillment and embodiment of the shadows and symbols. As Jesus said on the night he was betrayed,

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20).

By implication, Jesus was saying that the blood of the old covenant has been superseded by the new: the very lifeblood of God's Lamb, Jesus.
If many Christians were to read my last few paragraphs, I suggest there would puzzled expressions on the faces of more than a few readers! According to Sue Bohlin, the author of the "Bible Literacy Quiz,"

"Along with an alarming drop in basic literacy and cultural literacy in the United States, researcher George Gallup has discovered that born-again Christians are woefully ignorant of some very basic, very important Bible teachings. According to Gallup, less than half of the born-again community can list five of the Ten Commandments."

I suppose we could blame our lack of biblical savvy on the failure of preachers and teachers, generally, to preach from the Old Testament on a regular and systematic basis. I have a feeling, however, that many congregants would rebel against such preaching if only because they have prejudged the New Testament to be a kinder, gentler testament, and the Old Testament to be a bit too bloody, violent, and incomprehensible.
The primary reason for our lack of biblical savvy is perhaps very simple, and that is we are a generation of Christians who are simply not in love with God's Word. There are too many distractions and entertaining alternatives to Bible reading. According to a new Barna study, however, there is an encouraging trend among Millennial Christians regarding their high view of Scripture. According to summit.org:

The new Barna study, conducted in partnership with the American Bible Society and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, represents one of the largest studies ever conducted on a single generation’s view of the Bible. Three significant trends emerged. And if properly understood, they may inform churches’ efforts to reach, win, baptize, catechize, and disciple America’s newest adults.
The first insight? Practicing Christian millennials maintain a high view of Scripture. As Barna reports, of those young adults who identify as Christians, attend church at least once a month, and who describe their faith as “very important,” 96 percent say the Bible contains everything necessary to know in order to live a meaningful life. The same proportion say the Bible is the “inspired word of God,” and a plurality (46 percent) say they believe Scripture “should be taken literally, word for word.”
Additionally, researchers asked practicing religious millennials where the Bible ranked in their personal hierarchy of moral authority and truth. Of the 71 percent of respondents who said they believe in absolute truth, more named the Bible as their number one source of truth over any other, including church, pastors, and parents.

In light of this encouraging sign, leaders in churches across this country need to channel the respect Millennials have for the authority of God's word into a deeper knowledge of and appreciation for that word, particularly regarding the unity and affinity between the Old- and New Testaments, and why they both play a significant role in shaping our understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Not that there is anything especially remarkable about the Christian denomination with which I am a member, but a leader within my denomination devised a program for Bible reading which has local churches in my denomination (and perhaps other denominations as well, I hope) reading through the Bible in about two years. It's called "91 Weeks with Jesus.". About 1800 members of my local church have signed up for this project, and I'm one of them. Though I've read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times, I am excited to be a part of this commendable effort to instill a love for God's word in the hearts of believers. Only good things can come of it. Of that I am sure.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God foreordained the fall of Adam and Eve? I was reading the other day and I came across these verses

  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1 Peter 1:19-20, KJV)

I came to the conclusion that if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world then the fall of Adam and eve, and the need for a savior, must have been planned for, expected, or even meant to happen.

What is the biblical basis that the fall was the plan all along?

The statement means God knew mankind would not be perfect and holy character, i.e. that they would sin.

God is unique in character.  (Refer to references of "the Holy One of Israel", for example: unique in character is the intended message of this name God gave Himself to Ancient Israel).

There was zero chance mankind would be of the same character.  So, God prepared a way to redeem them while remaining true to His character.

God's plan was made before He made 'the foundations of the world' (can be interpreted physical creation, or prior to making man in the physical creation.  Either interpretation is irrelevant to the fact God knew beforehand man would fall short ("sin" is 'miss the mark'), thus God prepared a way to redeem mankind first, then made mankind.

But, God does not ordain free-will beings to fall, e.g. Jas 1:13-14

"For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.  But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed"


What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin? What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin? Can anybody give an overview, please?

It should be noted that Luther and Calvin thought pretty highly of one another, despite their disagreements. Also keep in mind that when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door, Calvin was less than 10 years old. It must also be remembered that a lot of what is taught under the banner of "Calvinism" today was not necessarily taught nor believed by Calvin, and the same applies to Luther and Lutheranism.

Salvation: They were both monergists, meaning they believed God completely accomplishes our salvation - human choice and deeds play no role. Luther taught the the will was bound until Christians are spiritually regenerated, and thus grace is resistible. Calvin believed that free will was gone permanently because God is completely sovereign, and thus His grace is irresistible. They essentially agreed on predestination, but Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity. Luther taught what is often called single predestination, which essentially means that God predestines people to heaven, but no one is predestined to damnation. Calvin on the other hand taught double predestination, that God predestines people either to heaven or hell.

Lord's Supper: Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but disagreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvinists like to label this view as consubstantiation, but present-day Lutherans reject this label. Calvin affirmed the presence of the living Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper by the action of the Holy Spirit, but disagreed with Luther's view because he felt it "localized" Christ to the elements. Calvin believed that Christ was "truly and efficaciously" present in the Lord's Supper, but in a spiritual sense, and through the mysterious intervention of the Holy Spirit, the communicant partakes spiritually of Christ's body" (cf. Institutes IV, 17, 18). It is argued whether Calvin's view is rightly called symbolic, or if it is a halfway point between Luther's view and the popular evangelical symbolic position. Either way, both Luther and Calvin felt that this was the biggest disagreement between them. Many Calvinists have argued that this disagreement was semantic and a result of clashing worldviews, while many Lutherans believe that these views are truly mutually exclusive.

Law/Gospel Emphasis: Calvin taught that God is absolutely sovereign, and man was created solely to bring glory to him. Luther did not necessarily disagree with this point, but his emphasis was much different. The motivation for glorifying God in Calvin's teaching was because this was man's obligation to God, which Luther felt was a Law-based focus. In Luther's teaching, while he didn't necessarily disagree with Calvin, man is privileged to serve God because of His grace and mercy, a Gospel-focused approach. This gets extended in each man's view of the Church (Calvin's emphasis of the visible vs. Luther's dual emphasis of the visible and invisible Church), but this is somewhat speculative. The Law/Gospel emphasis is a very subtle point, but most Lutherans believe it is extremely significant. Many modern-day Calvinists think this is an insignificant semantic argument (as well as with the Lord's Supper).

My Thoughts: This paragraph represents my opinion, and thus contains a Lutheran bias (I consider myself an Eastern Lutheran, which is somewhat oxymoronic). Having a Calvinist and a confessional Lutheran weigh in would be helpful to the discussion. Theology consists of a series of antinomies. They are not mere paradoxes that can be logically resolved, but both/and statements of truth. For instance,

Jesus is completely divine and yet fully human.
Jesus said "This is my body... this is my blood" and yet it is clearly bread and wine.
God is completely sovereign yet man has free will.
Christians are simultaneously sinners and saints (simul justus et peccator).
Law & Gospel (You must be perfect, but your works contribute nothing to salvation).
God is three and yet One.

Theological distinctives are often honest attempts to resolve these antinomies, but this places fallen human logic as judge over God's Word. It involves attempting to understand things that are beyond us, concepts for which our language and thinking are insufficient. Luther appeared to be more tolerant of antinomies, while Calvin often developed logical resolutions to many issues, viewing them as mere paradoxes (which only appear contradictory but can be logically resolved). In this sense, Luther was more tolerant of "mystery" while Calvin emphasized human logic more so. Both emphasized Western logic in many respects (Luther identified with Augustine's views on concupiscence which affects his belief of total depravity / original sin), but Luther vehemently attacked Aristotelian philosophy while defending Augustinian philosophy. Understanding Scholasticism and the philosophical underpinnings in German and French culture is crucial to understanding the deeper worldview issues influencing Luther and Calvin.

Overall I think both Luther and Calvin were honest, sinful men (just like the rest of us) who struggled with understanding God and His Word in their given historical and philosophical contexts. We are often unaware of our deepest biases, and this is no doubt the case for these men and for us as well. Their primary doctrinal disagreement centered in their views on the Lord's Supper, with significant philosophical underpinnings affecting this point of contention. It is my opinion that by embracing mystery and accepting the fact that our logic is fallen and corrupt, we will better "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).


Is there Christian scripture or literature absolving the old Jewish laws of usury? Most people are aware that Jewish law forbade earning interest from the lending of money to another. As Christianity gained momentum in the early first and second century, many of the Mosaic laws were abandoned, although certain aspects remained in place - for example, punishments for parental disrespect were abandoned although Christians taught that a child ought to respect his or her parents.

Is this another case of the letter of the law morphing into the spirit of the law? Christians seem to generally believe that it's sinful to impoverish another by means of lending practices, but that doesn't really stop many forms of interest charging that were previously forbidden. Is there any relevant scripture or literature relating to usury after the death of Christ?

Taken from Wikipedia, but edited with passages from the NIV, off of Bible Gateway.
The New Testament contains references to usury, notably in the Parable of the talents:

Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
—Matthew 25:27

So interest was accepted, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have used that as an example?

"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:42
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
—Luke 6:34-35

This suggests that you shouldn't even accept repayment, never mind interest.

"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
—Luke 6:38

So there is nothing absolving the rules, and abolishing them, but there is equally nothing that reiterates that they are wrong - to the contrary, there is a parable that speaks about it in a good light.


How does one go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist if I am not Catholic? So, I want to become a Catholic and so from what I have gathered, just go through the Eucharist. However I am pretty sure I have committed a few mortal sins and so cannot go through the Eucharist. However, it turns out you have to be a Catholic to confess, so what do I do?

Catholic sacraments are for Catholics.

Catholic sacraments are for Catholics and Catholics are to receive the sacraments from Catholic ministers.

  Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2. - Immensae Caritatis

However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:

  "Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

In your particular case, you must take an RCIA course in order to be instructed on what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Once an individual is ready to make a Profession of Faith into the Church, one will normally make a confession the day before he makes his public Profession of Faith and receives the Eucharist. This is the practice in my archdiocese.

That said one should be aware that Non-Catholics may go to confession under very limited circumstances.

  Can. 844 covers exceptional circumstances when Catholics can receive the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick from non-Catholic (but validly ordained) priests, as well as those exceptional circumstances when non-Catholics can receive those three sacraments in the Catholic Church.

  Note well the important word “exceptional”.

  Can. 844, states in paragraph 4:

    “If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or of the Bishops’ Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

  First situation: danger of death. Here the priest makes the determination. If a priest approaches a car accident where a man is dying and the priest asks if he can be of any assistance, and the man says, “Father, I’m a Lutheran, but I know I’m dying and I want to meet my Lord with a clear conscience. Could you hear my confession?” The priest could determine that, yes, the conditions warrant him hearing the confession of this Lutheran.

  Next: outside the danger of death. Notice who makes the determination: not the priest, but either the diocesan bishop, or the whole Bishops’ Conference. If there were a general persecution of Norwegian Lutherans in my native Minnesota, and all their ministers were being rounded up and sent to the state pen in Stillwater or St. Cloud, the diocesan bishops could determine that this exceptional situation warrants exceptional action. He could permit his priests to absolve, communicate, and anoint Norwegian Lutherans who come to them, provided these Lutherans “demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments.”

  Bottom line: in situations where there is not danger of death, it is not up to us – even to the priest – to determine if the conditions are met for these exceptional cases.  The bishop decides!  If there is time to consult the bishop, consult the bishop! -  Can non-Catholics go to confession?

That said, in the meantime one can and should make a perfect act of contrition.


What was the intended meaning of the quotation marks around "sinners" in the old NIV? Take for example Matthew 9:10-13:

  While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.

  When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

  On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

My younger self thought of them as similar to sarcasm quotes, to be read while smugly preening over the blindness of the Pharisees. That seems entirely inappropriate for a Bible translation, though, and the only explanation I can come up with for them being there in the first place is to imply that the Pharisees did not consider themselves sinful, or to imply that Christ's dinner guests were not really sinful after all. And then that old saw that goes "well, we're all sinners" comes tramping into mind...

I notice that the NIV 2011 took them out, but have the translators (or anyone else) ever explained why they were there in the first place?

This is not addressed in the Preface to the 1984 NIV, so we must look elsewhere for clues.

The best explanation I've found comes from Craig S. Keener's commentary on Matthew:

  Some take sinners here to mean the 'am hā'āres common people whom the Pharisees despised for their lack of adherence to Pharisaic food laws (as in Jeremias 1972:132; thus the quotation marks in the NIV); more scholars today lean toward the view that it means sinners in a more blatant sense. (source)

So the NIV translators make a judgment call – when the word sinners is used to mean something more like "despised by Pharisees" than "those who violate God's law," they put the word in quotes.

James A. Brooks, in The New American Commentary, explains the matter similarly, regarding Mark 2:15:

  The NIV is quite correct to put the word "sinners" in quotation marks to indicate that it is being used with an unusual meaning.  The reference is not to immoral or irreligious person but to those who because of the necessity of spending all their time earning a bare subsistence were not able to keep the law, especially the oral law, as the scribes thought they should.  As a result the scribes despised them.  Perhaps a better translation would be "outcasts" (GNB). (source)

But, as Keener notes, this is an interpretive decision and there's some disagreement over it.  Thus it shouldn't be surprising that other translations, including the NIV 2011, don't adopt this stylistic approach.


Creation order of events: Was there unanimous consent among the Church Fathers? Is there unanimous consent (as described here and here) among the Fathers of the Church who wrote on the interpretation of Genesis that the order of events of  creation actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them?

I know yom (Hebrew word for "day") used in Genesis must refer to a duration of time, be it 24 hours or some other duration (cf. the 1909 PBC decisions), but there is not unanimous consent among the Fathers on whether all the days are (or are not) one day.

For example, St. Augustine, as St. Thomas says, "differs from other expositors" and thinks that "all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect." Augustine's view is not clear to me. Does he say the 6 days' events were all in one instant or just in one day? The former view seems to deny the 1909 PBC's statement that yom must be a duration of time (instants aren't durations). For example, I can say my awaking in the morning today and my going to sleep tonight are simultaneous events because they occur in the same day, but they are not instantaneous; thus, they are ordered chronologically.

cf. The Church Fathers list on the New Advent.

From Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers it states:

  The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent
  early Christian views were.

Yet there is no evidence from the quotations that they disagreed on the order of events as described in Genesis actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them.

From Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis | The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission On questions of Sacred Scripture | Translated by E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J., it appears that the Church has affirmed the historicity of the First Three Chapters of Genesis and therefore it is not permitted to a good son [or daughter] of the Church to disagree that order of events as described in Genesis actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them.

What the Pontifical Biblical Commission said as regards the six days

  VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in
  the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in
  the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a
  certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free
  discussion among exegetes?
  Answer: In the affirmative.

The Catholics Answers link above and the OP both state Church Fathers held divergent views and Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).


Why did heaven need to be purified by Christ's blood? Hebrews 9:23, speaking of Moses purifying the earthly tabernacle and Jesus the heavenly home with blood, says,

  It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens
  should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with
  better sacrifices than these.

I thought the blood cleansed of sin. If so, then why was it applied to heavenly things? Or was the blood applied for a different reason to these two places?

In Moses' time, the sanctuary was cleansed once a year on the Day of Atonement.

  (Leviticus 16:30 KJV) For on that day shall the priest make an atonement
  for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins
  before the Lord.

On this day, two goats are chosen. One is sacrificed on behalf of the congregation for their sins, and the blood is sprinkled inside in the holy place inside the veil, on the mercy seat (Leviticus 16:15). Sin is transferred from the sinner, through the blood of the sacrifice, into the Sanctuary.

Once the High Priest has made an end to reconciliation, he walks in the courtyard to the other goat (the live goat) (Leviticus 16:20):

  (Leviticus 16:21) And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
  and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
  all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head
  of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
  wilderness: 22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

By this act the sanctuary is fully cleansed, with sin removed from the sanctuary by the merits of the spotless sacrifice, and resting ultimately on the Scapegoat (or Azazel in Hebrew).

Now, through Hebrew 8, we know that the earthly sanctuary is merely a copy of the true Sanctuary in Heaven. All patterns and ceremonies are merely an enactment of the true services in Heaven.

In the Heavenly sanctuary, Jesus is both the spotless sacrifice and our High Priest. In fact, the true mercy seat exists in the Heavenly Sanctuary, on the ark of covenant in heaven; "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." (Revelation 11:19). Thus in the heavenly sanctuary, services are performed to address sin that were represented by the services on earth.

When we sin and are forgiven, our sins are removed through the blood of the sinless sacrifice. However, they do not disappear, but are transferred by the blood into the Heavenly Sanctuary. The book of remembrance keeps a record of all our sins until the Judgement. The Day of Atonement represents a period in heaven when the Sanctuary is cleansed. Sins are blotted out from the book of remembrance through the merits of Jesus, and will be placed ultimately unto the Scapegoat. By this, justice is served.

  (Daniel 8:14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred
  days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


Evangelical Christians claim Jerusalem was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE. What is the evidence? Whereas Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, many evangelical Christians who write on such things believe it was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE.
Is there any Biblical evidence to support either of the two dates 587/586?  What other evidence supports either of these dates?
Please give evidence, either Biblical or extra-Biblical, not just statements of belief.  I ask from a Trinitarian point of view.

First of all, there were two sieges of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II:
597 BCE:

a military campaign carried out by Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.
In 605 BC, he defeated Pharaoh Necho at the Battle of Carchemish, and subsequently invaded Judah.
According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, King Jehoiakim of Judah rebelled against Babylonian rule, but Nebuchadnezzar captured the city and installed Zedekiah as ruler.

587 BCE:

Following the siege of 597 BC, the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as vassal king of Judah. However, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon, and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, the king of Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar responded by invading Judah
Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Jerusalem in December 589 BC. The siege lasted for either 18 or 30 months: there has been some debate as to when Nebuchadnezzar's second siege of Jerusalem took place. This gives us two possible chronologies:

the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem as 587 BCE (Albright), or
586 BCE (Thiele) based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which he asserts was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BCE

After the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonian general Nebuzaraddan was sent to complete its destruction.

Besides the "18 or 30 months" and the "zeroeth year" interpretations, there is no diagreement among historians about the dates. There is no historical evidence for the siege of Jerusalem to have ended in 607 BCE. Multiple external sources, including Ptolemy's cannon, verify 586 BCE. It's also testified as the correct date in the Nabonidus Chronicle, Harran, Hillah Stele, the excavation of Lachish, and synchronization of Egyptian chronology. Tens of thousands of detailed Economic-administrative, business and legal documents have been unearthed outlining daily, monthly and yearly occurrences during the reign of the Babylonian kings, all of which are 20 years out of sync when using 607 BC, but line up perfectly with 586 BC.


If someone doesn't know about Christianity, and they sin, do they go to hell? I was debating with a friend recently and he is from India, he never knew about Christianity until he came to the US, and he made a sin, will he go to hell?

There are lots and lots of different positions on this matter, this link is a very good summary.

To summarise even further the points in the article:

1. Church Exclusivism - outside the church there is no salvation (therefore there is no salvation for unreached people)

2. Gospel Exclusivism - outside the gospel there is no salvation (therefore there is no salvation for unreached people)

3. Special Revelation Exclusivism - outside special revelation there is no salvation (special revelation includes the gospel/the church, but also includes dreams/visions/direct words of God to non-believers and unreached people)

4. Agnosticism - neutral position, committed only to not knowing

5.  General Revelation Inclusivism - anyone can be saved by general revelation (belief in a non-religion specific God) but other religions are in no way instrumental to salvation

6.  World Religions Inclusivism - similar to (5), but also holds that other religions can be used for salvation.

7.  Postmortem Evangelism - unbelievers who die will have a chance to trust Christ after death

8.  Universalism - everyone will be ultimately saved by the Christian God

9.  Pluralism - everyone will be ultimately saved by God, the Christian image of which is no more or less valid than that of other religions

There's also a tenth position I'm aware of, but I can't find anybody willing to give it a name:

10. Universalism for the unreached - all unreached people will be saved, God only rejects those who reject him first

This is a very problematic position though, because it begs the question, why evangelise in the first place, given that it only decreases one's chance of salvation.


How was slavery in the U.S. justified by Christianity? President Barack Obama recently stated that many atrocities were done in the name of Christ.  He went on to say that Slavery in the United States was also justified by Christianity.

Since he did not cite any Scripture, in his statement; I have searched the Gospels for any words of Jesus, which could be construed to support slavery; and have found none.

If Slavery was so justified as being defended in the name of Christ, I cannot find it.

Can anyone assist me in understanding the President's assertion?

Robert Bruce Mullin says in 'North America', published in A World History of Christianity (edited by Adrian Hastings), pages 437-8, that Southern religious figures claimed not only that was slavery a positive good, but that it was a Christian institution.

This slavery argument gained a specific religious dimension, and the northern Protestants faced a difficult question - how was slavery a sin? Did the Bible ever condemn slavery as sinful in its very nature, and if not, were there actions which were in fact sinful which the Bible did not recognise as sin? A close reading of Scripture demonstrated that the biblical authors seemed to accept slavery as an institution and nowhere explicitly condemned it, and Mullin says this theological question became a troubling aspect of the American crisis. He cites the Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878), who insisted, “nothing is obligatory upon the conscience but what [the Bible] enjoins; nothing can be sin but what it condemns.”


Did Christ open the Door of Hell after he preached the Gospel in the realm of the dead? CCC635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live". Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and under the earth."

The Catechism teaches that Jesus preached the Gospel to all souls who are in hell or even to the depths of the dead. CCC632 to CCC634 had supporting teaching or explanation on this. It would mean, that the word hell or hades pre-Jesus descent into hell was composed of all souls both the imperfect souls undergoing purification and the damned souls but not the place of of the demons. (Note:The Abraham bosoms is a different place and its not hell but paradise.)

After Jesus had preached to all the souls in hell, some of the souls heard the Gospel and they live according to CCC635, and some of the damned souls still rejected the Gospel and suffer eternal death.

These damned souls after Jesus had preached the gospel in hell still manifest their rejection and deserved to be thrown on the "real hell" where the demons where situated. But since, the "real hell" of the demons was locked, Jesus had to open it having the Keys too not only in the place of "Death but even the Hades" for all the damned souls to finally enters the "real hell" where the demons are.

According to Catholicism, did Jesus open the gates of hell, the "real hell" of the demons for all the damned souls to enter as their just punishment?

The answer is NO. Not sure why you skipped CCC633 in your research where you can find the answer.

  Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went
  down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who
  are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for
  all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the
  Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus
  shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received
  into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who
  awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord
  delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into
  hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but
  to free the just who had gone before him. CCC633