What major changes have American Presbyterians made to the Westminster Confession of Faith? As someone who generally affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, one comment I hear periodically is that I therefore must believe that the Pope is the Antichrist.  However, the Confession published by my denomination (the PCA) does not say anything like that.  It does, however, include the following note:

  This text of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936 and by the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973.  It is derived from a 1646 manuscript edited by S. W. Carruthers and incorporates revisions adoped by American Presbyterian churches as early as 1789.

So apparently the "Westminster" Confession of Faith I subscribe to is not exactly the same as the one written by Westminster Divines in the 1640s.  This is a bit disconcerting, as I recently argued that Reformed theologians would never simply "update" the Confession if they suddenly changed their minds regarding some core doctrine.

My question, then, is: what is an overview of the changes made by American Presbyterians to the Westminster Confession of Faith up to 1936?  Put another way, what are the several most significant edits to the WCF made by the large/longstanding Presbyterian denominations in the United States, up to and including any changes made by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936?

In case it's not clear, this means no Savoy Declaration, even though it was adopted by Americans (they were congregationalists, not presbyterians), no Philadelphia Confession (Baptists), and no explanatory notes (a la the "Testimony" of the RPCNA).  Similarly, no mere spelling or grammar fixes, or even "modernizations" or other wording tweaks that generally preserve the original meaning.

American Presbyterians have indeed made a number of significant changes to the Westminster Confession through the years.  Some portions of the Confession have been revised (or outright rejected) by most American Presbyterians, while other changes provoked (or were the result of) debate and division.  The most significant changes can be broken down as follows:

On the civil magistrate (1788–1799)
Semi-Arminianism in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1829)
Expansion and modernization (1887–1925)
Conservatism in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936)

Civil magistrates
The earliest major changes, and those affecting perhaps the most American Presbyterians, are related to the Westminster Confession's treatment of the authority and powers of the civil magistrate.  The section at the root of the issue was 23.3, beginning with "yet he hath authority":

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

18th century American Presbyterians objected to this language, especially the ideas that the civil magistrate could suppress heresy and control synods.  As a result, the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) approved notable changes in 1789:1

20.4 – removal of "and by the power of the civil magistrate" regarding means of being called to account for sin
23.3 – near total rewrite, making the magistrate a "nursing father" rather than an authority over the church
31.2 – rewrite and consolidation into 31.1, for consistency with 23.3 and the magistrate's lack of power to call synods

The Associate Reformed Church modified the same sections in 1799, using different language but achieving similar results.2
The Cumberland Presbyterian Church
In the early 19th century, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church split from the PCUSA over issues similar to those of the Old Side–New Side controversy; it wanted to relax educational and doctrinal requirements for its pasters as they sought to minister in the frontier alongside the successful Methodists and Baptists.  They established a denomination in 1829, and adopted a Confession based on the 1789 American revision of Westminster but with a number of Arminian tendencies:3

Rewrite of Chapter 3, originally "Of God's Eternal Decree," including the complete ommission of sections 3–8.  The associated note says that Calvinists drive "rational, accountable man into the asylum of fate."
Modifications to chapters 9, 10, and 11 remove the doctrine of unconditional election, allow the possibility of entire sanctification, and indicate that all infants that die, not merely elect infants, are saved.

Expansion and modernization
The next round of significant modifications occurred in 1903, by the PCUSA.  A few years prior, in 1887, it had excised the last phrase of section 24.4, prohibiting marriage to a close relative of a deceased spouse.  But the changes of 1903 were more drastic:4

16.7 – softening of language regarding the sinfulness of the unsaved
22.3 – removal of the sentence declaring it sinful to refuse to make a just oath when required by lawful authority
25.6 – rewrite to remove explicit mentions of the Pope and Antichrist
34 – new chapter entitled, "Of the Holy Spirit," describing the role and work of the Holy Spirit
35 – new chapter entitled, "Of the Love of God and Missions," emphasizing God's desire that all be saved and the importance of missions

As an aside, not all bodies desiring these kinds of changes modified the WCF.   For example, the United Presbyterian Church of North America adopted a Confessional Statement in 1925 that was meant to supersede the original Westminster Standards where the two differed.5
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church split from the PCUSA in the midst of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy; its leaders opposed the theological liberalization of the PCUSA.  As such, it rejected most of the changes made by its parent denomination in 1903, but accepted those made prior to that.  Its significant differences from the 1647 edition can be summarized as follows:

20.4, 23.3, and 31.2 – retain the 1788 American revisions regarding the civil magistrate
24.4 – retain the 1877 revision regarding remarriage
22.3 – accept the 1903 revision regarding refusing oaths
25.6 – excise the clause identifying the Pope as the Antichrist (not rewriting the entire section, as in the 1903 revision)

The OPC recognizes that these revisions are "not insignificant," but calculates that they only affect 145 of the 12063 words in the Confession, or 1.2%.6
Summary
It's certainly true that American Presbyterians have significantly modified the Westminster Confession; some much more so than others.  Over the years some denominations have seen fit to change even its language on major Reformed doctrines, whether to jettison them or soften them.  But, for what it is worth, the version used by the OPC (and, by extension, the PCA) has been less extensively modified.

Bibliography
For analysis of editions of the Westminster Confession prior to 1900, see B. B. Warfield, The Printing of the Westminster Confession, II.  He provides a listing of all changes, including minor ones, between the original 1647 and PCUSA 1896 editions on page 116.  His treatment of groups outside the PCUSA is less extensive; for example, he does not mention the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
For a helpful treatment of the American revisions of 1788, see Lee Irons, "The 1788 American Revision of the Westminster Standards."  For analysis, see Hart and Muether, "Turning Points in American Presbyterians History, Part 4"
For more general treatment of major Protestant confessions through the early 20th century, see Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, Volume III.
References

Irons.
Constitution and Standards, pages 94, 111, and 134.
Schaff, 3.3.2
Schaff, 4.1.3
Schaff, 4.1.5
OPC, "American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith"


How common is it to fast for 40+ days among Christians? I recently watched a testimony that reports the results of a 40-day water/juice fast (no food). The individual claims to have been addicted to drugs for 22 years, including marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy, prescription pain pills and alcohol. He went cold turkey, abstaining from both food and addictive substances during the 40-day fast, after which he reports complete freedom and no relapses.
I find this testimony quite impressive, both for the amazing results and the endurance required to accomplish such a long fast, but I also find it kind of extreme. I know that Jesus is reported to have fasted for 40 days too in Scripture, but to be honest, fasting for such a long period of time is not something you commonly hear about.
How common is it to fast for 40 or more days among Christians? What are the typical reasons Christians give for the decision to fast for 40+ days?

To his disciples, regarding fasting, Jesus says :

But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. [Matthew 6:17,18 KJV]

So, regarding those who follow the words of Jesus, it would be impossible to say what they do or when they do it, for they do it secretly, unto the Father.


Why is Easter celebrated on a different day every year and Christmas is not? It is well known that on Easter we celebrate Jesus' resurrection, but every year it is held on a different date, whereas Jesus' birthday—Christmas—is celebrated on the same day every year. So why is the day we celebrate Jesus' resurrection different every year when Christmas is not?

The date of Easter follows similar rules as the date of Passover, and is determined using those rules because of that tradition. (The death of Jesus on that day is significant because of his connection of his death to the sacrifice of the passover lamb.)

In the western church, Easter falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the nominal northern-hemisphere vernal equinox. (I call it nominal because it's considered to be on March 21, rather than at the moment of the astronomical equinox.)

In the eastern church, it's based on the old Julian calendar, and so sometimes is on a different date.  Hopefully somebody who understands this can contribute.

In Lutheran Christianity, the date chosen for celebrating Easter is the archetypal adiaphoron, or a good example of a thing that doesn't matter.  The reformers considered that it was more important to go along with the rest of the Christendom of the time in choosing this date, than it was to somehow get the date "right."


Are there any conditions which make oneself completely unredeemable in the eyes of God? I am curious if there are any actions or conditions which "seal your fate" so to speak, such that should you do them—no matter how much you repent or accept Jesus or pray—that you are doomed forever to Hell.

For example, Richard Dawkins wrote several anti-God books and has long been critical of religion; is it possible that he's "passed the threshold" of "saveableness"? Or are we all always saveable? Or someone who is born gay, and while I understand not all Christians think gays will go to Hell, there are certainly some major groups that do. Are these people then, genetically determined to go to Hell? A better example might be someone who is born blind and deaf, or extremely mentally ill, such that with no amount of instruction would they be able to understand the Bible, let alone the concept of "book" or "savior". These people would never embrace Jesus; are they damned from birth without any hope?

In other words, is it possible that the conditions of your existence could doom you to Hell inevitably, despite any efforts or willingness on your part?

Jesus answers this one pretty clearly: such a sin does exist.

  Mark 3:28-29

  28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of
  men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

  29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
  forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and speculation as to its meaning tends to be all over the place.


Are the early followers of Christ considered Christians or Jews in today's context? If not, when was the religion created? From sometime after 4 BC and up to and sometime between the destruction of the Second Temple (C. 70) and Council of Nicaea (AD 325), Christians were considered Jewish with Jesus as their leader.  When in this time was the Christian religion created? At some point they obviously were no longer Jews, or we wouldn't have the Judaic religion we have today.

Secondly, would Jews that were followers of Jesus be considered Christians today?  Given that the divinity of Jesus wasn't "agreed" upon until Synods of Antioch (264 and 269) - arguably it is not universally "agreed" upon today.

If my dates are wrong, please feel free to correct me

For starters, nobody was really a follower of Christ, as such, until he was about 30 years old (sometime from 27 to 30 AD or so).  At that point, Jesus began teaching in the synagogues and healing in public places.  We read about his first followers in several places, including:

  On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. [Miracle elided for space.] For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.—Luke 5:1-11 (ESV)

Initially Jesus was considered just another rabbi and miracle worker in the mold of Honi the Circle-Drawer, Hanina ben Dosa and others.

By the end of his ministry, Jesus had been recast by his Jewish accusers of being a rebel against Rome along the lines of the Maccabees, Judas of Galilee and Zadok the Pharisee:

  Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”—Luke 23:1-5 (ESV)

However, after his death, Jesus' followers remained undeterred and continued teaching and performing miracles in his name.  But they did not seem interested in starting a rebellion:

  Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. [Details elided for space.] For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.—Acts 11:19-26 (ESV)

It's safe to say that by this time, the followers of Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish authorities and there was considerable confusion about their status among the Roman authorities.  The issue is that Rome tolerated Judaism as a traditional religion.  As a sect of Judaism, Christianity was protected from official persecution.  After the Great Revolt, Jews were generally despised by Romans and it's likely that Christians were implicated by association. In 96 AD, Christians were exempted from the "Jewish Tax", so the split was official at that point.

The various councils (after the Jerusalem Council of course) had nothing to do with the split, which had clearly already occurred.


How do those who believe man is tripartite respond to Gen. 2:7, "the man became a living soul"? Those who believe that man is bipartite (a soul consisting of body and spirit) cite Gen. 2:7 as proof that man does not have a soul, but rather, man is a soul. Consequently, they deny any assertion that a soul continues to exist after the death of the body (i.e., disembodied soul). Yet, certain scriptures seem to confirm the existence of an embodied soul, such as 1 Thes. 5:23,

  And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (KJV)

How do those who believe that man is tripartite answer the objection (from those who believe that man is bipartite) that a man is a living soul and therefore does not have a soul, based on Gen. 2:7?

Gen. 2:7, which states that "the man became a living soul" (thereby implying that "the man" = "the living soul"), seems to conflict with 1 Thes. 5:23 which states that man is composed of "the spirit and the soul and the body" (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα). Is man a soul or does man have a soul?

The apparent contradiction can be reconciled if we understand that the author of Gen. 2:7 is using the Hebrew word נפש (Greek ψυχή) as a synecdoche of part for the entire person.

In Approaching Jehovah’s Witnesses in Love: How to Witness Effectively without Arguing, Ch. 6, Wilbur Lingle wrote,

In Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 840, Ethelbert William Bullinger defines the synecdoche of part:

Hence, נפש is used to represent the entire man because it represents one of the more important parts of man.


What is the purpose of baptism for sola fide adherents? Sola fide says that works play no part in our salvation. For sola fide adherents, what is the purpose of baptism? Is baptism necessary?

Speaking as an adherent of the belief that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works (lest any man should boast - Ephesians 2:8-10):

Baptism is an external symbol of obedience.  It doesn't gain you anything.  It is an outward show and demonstration that symbolizes our death to our old selves, and resurrection into the new life as a Christian.

Consider a secular comparison - graduating from school.  The graduation ceremony does not educate us.  Receiving the diploma does not educate us. Both are a sign that we have completed our education and are moving on to the next step, and both are largely ceremonial and serve as a rite of passage.

To those of us that believe in sola fide believe that (obviously) only the saving grace  of God is responsible for our salvation, and baptism no more saves us than a diploma educates us.

As a side note, for those of us that believe in baptism by immersion, rather than sprinkling, this is a part of why we believe in this form of baptism.  In addition to it being how John the Baptist did it, we also see the going under water as symbolic of Christs death, and coming back out of the water as symbolic of His resurrection.

To those of us who hold my views, baptism is not necessary for salvation.  However, we also realize that there are plenty of opposing views.  It all hinges on whether or not you count baptism as a "work".  I've seen arguments for both sides, and all seem to have merit but for me, personally, and most of the people in my Church it comes down to one verse - Ephesians 2:10, not of works lest any man should boast.  (emphasis mine)

In giving all glory to God, we refuse to try to take any credit for our own salvation.  Even the tiniest hint of pride in the matter is not acceptable to us, and whether baptism is a "work" or not, if we feel that we have contributed to our salvation in obedience, then it is not of God alone, and the glory is not His.

Again, I know there are opposing views, but the question appears to be geared to how those with this particular view see the issue.

I would say that baptism is necessary on some level, though -not as an act of salvation, but as an outward sign that we're really "giving up our cross to follow Him".  If we can't obey such a simple thing, how on earth would we expect to claim that we live for Him?


Has the gospel been "preached to all nations"? Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says:

  And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV)

Has the gospel been preached to all nations?

No.

The word translated 'nations' is ἔθνος (ethnos), from which we derive the word 'ethnic'. It is talking about ethnic communities, which we might call people groups today, not political states.

The Joshua Project estimates that there are 16,825 people groups in the word. Of those, 7,287 are unreached, by which they mean "less than 2% Evangelical Christian and less than 5% Christian Adherents". Because there are so few Christians in an unreached people group they will struggle to evangelise their own group with the gospel, which means many Christians believe they need outside missionary help. This represents 2.91 billion people.

The International Mission Board estimates there are 2,945 unengaged people groups. An unengaged people group is one where there are no Christian in the group, and no plan for anyone to take the gospel to them. They estimate there are over 190 million people in unengaged people groups.


How do Christians who adhere to the maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” determine what is essential? The phrase has been worded in different but equivalent ways. For example, the Wikipedia article titled In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas says:

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (commonly translated as "unity in necessary things; freedom in doubtful things; love in all things" or more literally as "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity") is a Latin phrase.
[...]
The maxim is widely quoted in defence of theological and religious freedom, even though it raises the essential question of which things are necessary and which are doubtful or unnecessary. Despite those conflicts, the maxim mandates charity among all.

In  other words, Christians are called to be charitable and maintain unity with other Christians despite potential doctrinal differences, as long as a minimal set of fundamental essential beliefs are commonly shared. Therefore, it follows as a corollary that failure to accept one or more of the essential doctrines by one of the parties immediately warrants the rupture of the unity.
Question: How do Christians who adhere to the maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” determine what is essential?

The maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” is widely embraced by many Protestant churches (Church of England/Anglican, Methodist, Evangelical Presbyterian, Moravian, etc.). The phrase in its current form is found in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram of 29 June 1959, where he uses it favorably.  In the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline, the phrase appears in the doctrinal history section: 57 as "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." A few lines later, the mandate is emphasized as "the crucial matter in religion is steadfast love for God and neighbor, empowered by the redeeming and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit."  (Taken from the Wikipedia article you based your question on.)
That is possibly the short answer to your question.  However, it’s not as simple as that, more is the pity. Before moving on to doctrinal issues, please be aware that failure by one denomination to accept the essential doctrines upheld by Christian churches does not necessarily “warrant the rupture of the unity”.  What it suggests is that some denominations are perceived to be outside of the unity of Christian churches who uphold fundamental Christian doctrines.  Let’s focus on the main part of your question, “how do Christians determine what is essential?”  We need to compare the earliest Christian beliefs with what we have now to establish what is considered “essential”.
The first documented creed on the Christian faith is known as the Apostles’ Creed, written about 150 years after the death of the apostles.  It in, we have the fundamental beliefs of Christianity:
•   God the Father Almighty, Creator
•   Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord
•   Conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary
•   Crucified, died, was buried, resurrected and ascended into heaven
•   Sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
•   Will return to judge the living and the dead
•   The Holy Spirit, the Church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body and life everlasting
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-creed.html
Later, in A.D. 325 comes the Nicene Creed: https://www.gotquestions.org/Nicene-creed.html
Moving on to A.D. 1571 we have the 39 Articles of the Church of England, adopted by Anglicans and Episcopalians.  Below are the main doctrines:
•   Trinity – Three Persons within the Godhead
•   Jesus – the Word or Son of God – from everlasting, begotten, not created
•   The Holy Ghost – proceeding from the Father and the Son
•   Jesus – died, buried, resurrected, ascended into heaven, and will return to judge humanity
•   Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation
•   Of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed
•   Of sin, free will, justification (by faith alone), predestination, election and the Church
Source: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion
More recently, we have the basic beliefs of the United Methodist Church which include:
•   The Triune God – one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit
•   The Bible – the inspired word of God
•   Sin – all humans are sinners
•   Salvation through Jesus Christ
•   The Grace of Sanctification
•   The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion
•   Free will and Social Justice
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church#Doctrine
What Christians have in common is based on the Bible, which all Christians believe is the inspired Word of God.  Essential to Christian doctrine is the holiness of God, our creator, the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and an acceptance that we are all sinners who can only be saved because of what God, in Jesus, has done to pay the price of sin.  All Christians believe in the virgin birth, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the judgment to come.  Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, those who believe in Him can receive forgiveness and be sanctified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  They are adopted into God’s family and are spiritually “born again” which results in a transformed life, a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit.  Faith in God, in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit are foundational to Christianity.
Any denomination that denies the inspiration of Scripture must remain outside the unity of Christianity; likewise, any denomination that denies the sinful condition of humanity, and the need to repent and believe in Christ Jesus as the only way to God.  The last word (written before the end of the first century) belongs to Jude:

I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.  For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.  They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude verses 3-4; cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3).

Finally, in light of the comment left by Paul Chernoch, I realise that this brief and simple outline is far from complete.  No doubt others will be able to add to it and explain it better.  It is not my purpose to argue doctrine with others, merely to present some of the “essentials” of Christian unity as you have requested.  There is liberty to be experienced with like-minded fellow believers, even though we do not necessarily agree with every point of view.  That’s where we exercise charity, to put into practice the love of God that we have received and experienced.


What is the biblical basis for the belief by Seventh-day Adventists that evangelized Gentiles should keep the Sabbath? Which passages of Scripture are canonically or typically cited by Seventh-day Adventists in defense of the belief that evangelized Gentiles are to keep the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) the same as the Jews in the Old Covenant? How do they normally interpret those passages in order to come to that conclusion?

Traditionally, Seventh-day Adventists hold that the Ten Commandments (including the fourth commandment concerning the sabbath) are part of the moral law of God, not abrogated by the teachings of Jesus Christ, which apply equally to Christians.
Following are excerpts from the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding Sabbath:

The gracious Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13-17; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 5:12-15; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12, 20; Matt. 12:1-12; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:16; Heb. 4:1-11.)

Adventists believe that the formal giving of the Law to Israel does not indicate that Israel alone is morally responsible before God for the things represented in the law:

The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments
and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will,
and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are
binding upon all people in every age.

The basis of Adventist belief that the 4th commandment applies to all people in every age is that the Sabbath is first described in the creation account wherein God Himself rested.  This Sabbath memorial of what God has done in creation is embodied in the Law and exemplified in Christ and, by extension, the Church (Christ's body, Christ's bride, God's people):

the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days

It appears that, rather than making a distinction between the universal moral law and the Ten Commandments given to Israel through Moses, SDA holds them to be one and the same.  The following excerpts are taken from the doctrine section of an SDA apologetic s website.

Seventh-day Adventists are in full accord ... that the moral
law is eternal in its very nature and has not been abrogated. We
believe that these eternal moral principles are unchanged and
unchangeable. We further believe that these basic principles are found
in the Decalogue—Ten Commandments, or the moral law.

Some think of the Sabbath as an institution related only to the Hebrews. Those who press this point claim that the Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue emphasizes that the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Hebrews, because they had been delivered from slavery.
The silence of the latter part of Genesis regarding the Sabbath is
understandable when one remembers that acquaintance of the patriarchs
with God's commandments was taken for granted. The author of the
historical record in Genesis did not deem it necessary to mention it
in his sweeping survey of the centuries. But Abraham kept the
commandments of God (Gen. 26:5)—the Hebrew word here used for
"commandments" being the same as that used for the Decalogue in
Deuteronomy 5:10, 29. Kalisch mentions this as the law written in the
heart of man, and the Pulpit Commentary states that the word means
"that which is graven on tables." Abraham acknowledged and obeyed the
moral law of God. If so, would that not include the Sabbath? The
Companion Bible (Gen. 26:5) says Abraham had a charge, to be observed;
commandments, to be obeyed; statutes (decrees), to be acknowledged;
and laws "instruction," the Torah), to be followed.
And during their wilderness experience, God tested His ancient people
as to whether they would walk in the way of His commandments (Ex.
16:4). The test came on the subject of the Sabbath. And comparison of
Exodus 16:1 with Exodus 19:1 shows that this occurred several weeks
before the promulgation of the Decalogue. They must, therefore, have
known not only of God's law but also of specific commandments embraced
therein, as evidenced by this reference to the Sabbath.


What relationship, if any, does the Feeding of the Multitudes in Mark have to this passage in Goethe's Faust? I'm reading Goethe's Faust and I came upon this passage, spoken by Mephistopheles:

  For Devils and for spectres this is law: Where they have entered in,
  there also they withdraw. The first is free to us; we’re governed by
  the second.

In the original German, this reads as :

  's ist ein Gesetz der Teufel und Gespenster:   Wo sie
  hereingeschlüpft, da müssen sie hinaus.   Das erste steht uns frei,
  beim zweiten sind wir Knechte.

Does this "law"/superstition have any basis in Christian doctrine? I ask because I was paging through a copy of Paul Verhoeven book, Jesus of Nazareth, which includes this passage in reference to the Feeding of the Multitudes:

Footnote 49, after this text "this suggets that he saw the communal meal as an eschatological feast, refers to this passage from Faust.

I don't see how these passages are related; is their a relationship that I'm missing?

The Goethe quotation is part of an ensemble of beliefs around the activities of evil spirits, and the ability of humans to control or confuse them by symbolic (ie, magical) practices. You may have heard of the idea that vampires have to be invited in to your home in the first instance, but thereafter can return as they please. This is similar, saying that demons have to go out in the same way that they came in.

In Mark 2 and Luke 5 is the story of Jesus healing a paralytic man, who is let down through a hole in the roof of the house. Some commentators have suggested a parallel with customs surrounding the movements of evil spirits: (1) an Indian custom that someone could be healed of demonic possession by lowering them into the house through the roof, and then expelling the demons outward along the same path, (2) a Roman custom that someone missing, presumed dead, and then found alive should return to their home through a hole in the roof, so that death would not be able to follow them, or (3) that dead people should be carried out of their house by an unusual route, again to confuse the demons. This third one is the one being cited in your footnote.

(I think that your footnote 49 is actually for a different chapter in the Verhoeven book - his Chapter 4, as far as I can see from the Amazon preview, covers this miracle, whereas the feeding of the multitudes is in Chapter 5. If the footnotes are separately numbered for each chapter then this is an easy mistake to make! I agree that the feeding of the multitudes has no relation to the Goethe passage.)

This is not necessarily "based in Christian doctrine", though. It is the kind of belief for which someone who already held it could possibly find support in the Gospel passages mentioned, if they were sufficiently motivated. But I think van der Loos puts his finger on it when he says:

  Data such as these are definitely most peculiar, and worth mentioning, but since according to the Evangelists the bearers of the sick man acted in this way because they could see no other opportunity of taking the paralysed man to Jesus - in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:19 this is stated as the motive - there is no reason to look for other motives.

References:

The Miracles of Jesus, Hendrik van der Loos (Brill, 1965). Pages 442-443 discuss these theories, and footnote 5 on page 442 quotes this Goethe passage.
Das Abdecken des Daches, Mc 2 Lc 5, Hedwig Jahnow (1925). Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 24(1):155-158.
Die reste der primitiven Religion im ältesten Christentum, Carl Clemen (1916). Pages 137ff (cited by van der Loos, and quoting Goethe on page 138).
Quaestiones Romanae, Plutarch. 264D-265B.  Cited by van der Loos.


Where are the Mormon "relics"? There were several Sacred items that were buried with the Plates of Gold by the prophet Moroni:

  "Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under
  the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I
  looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and
  Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in
  which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of
  cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the
  box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with
  them." (JS–H 1:52)

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, saw these items at Fayette, New York, in June 1829 (see Doctrine and Covenants Section 17)

  "Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you
  do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates,
  and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim,
  which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he
  talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors (Liahona) which
  were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red
  Sea." (D&C 17:1)

According to the LDS church, where are these items now?

As far as I know, Joseph only received the Golden Plates, the Urim and Thumim, and the breastplate to which the Urim and Thumim was connected.

Joseph Smith - History 1:59

  59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and
  Thummim, and the breastplate.[...]

The view referred to in D&C 17:1 is the vision that the Three Witnesses saw.

Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

  David Whitmer explained: “We went out into the woods, near by, and sat
  down on a log and talked awhile. We then kneeled down and prayed.
  Joseph prayed. We then got up and sat on the log and were talking,
  when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for
  quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us.” This
  angel was Moroni. David said that he “was dressed in white, and spoke
  and called me by name and said ‘Blessed is he that keepeth His
  commandments.’ A table was set before us and on it the records were
  placed. The Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was
  translated, the brass plates, the Ball of Directors, the sword of
  Laban and other plates.” While the men were viewing these things,
  they heard a voice that said: “These plates have been revealed by the
  power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The
  translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you
  to bear record of what you now see and hear.”

The Golden Plates (and the Urim and Thumim) were taken again by the angel, and the other things were never in Joseph's posession, as far as I am aware.


Are there any Catholic saints or notable theologians that have interpreted 666 in the manner as explained below? Are there any Catholic saints or notable theologians that have interpreted the the Beast of Revelations number 666 in the following way?

The first 6 is linked to the six days of creation and in the eyes one day to the Lord is like a thousand days. - (2Peter 3:8)

The second 6, is linked to the age of the world as being 6,000 years old when the Beast of Revelation will appear.

The final 6, is referred to as being the the sixth age of the Church (or Creation).

  Six Ages

  The Six Ages, as formulated by Saint Augustine, are defined in De catechizandis rudibus (On the catechizing of the uninstructed), Chapter 22:

  The First Age "is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood," i.e. the Antediluvian period.
  The Second Age "extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations.."
  The Third Age "extends from Abraham on to David the king."
  The Fourth Age is "from David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia."
  The Fifth Age is "from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ."
  The Sixth Age: "With His [Jesus Christ's] coming the sixth age has entered on its process."

  The Ages reflect the seven days of creation, of which the last day is the rest of Sabbath, illustrating the human journey to find eternal rest with God, a common Christian narrative. - Six Ages of the World (Wikipedia)

I vaguely recall reading about this some decades ago. Can anyone point me to a source or sources of this information?

  Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. - Revelation 13:18

The interpretation given dwelt more on the time when the man, known as the Antichrist was going to appear, rather than on the interpretation that the numbers were more personally linked to the man of perdition.

Can anyone recall which Catholic author(s) wrote about this?

The church father Irenaeus  (130-202) said there were many names that could be produced from the number, and he speculates about the name using the “Greek fashion of calculation”, using the value of the letters contained in 666 and trying to mathematically produce a name. He attributes the erroneous number 616 to a copyist error, and states that none of the names produced is certain. This would indicate that it wasn’t anything that he learned from the apostolic teaching tradition. However, Irenaeus offered an alternative interpretation of 666.

  And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,” (Rev 13:18) that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years." Irenaeus V.XXVIII.2

  For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(2 Pet 3:8) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah (Gen 7:6), in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace (Dan 3:1), do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things’ sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth]." V.XXVIII.3

The church father Irenaeus associated the number of the beast (Rev 13:18) with the six days of creation as well as 6,000 years of Earth history. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Of course, Irenaeus got the number from the book of Revelation. According to this church father, the number was foreshadowed by the six days of creation, the flood, and the book of Daniel.

Surprisingly, the idea for 666 was preceded by the first-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD).

  Since, therefore, the first beginning of the generation of our race, after the destruction caused by the deluge, commenced with Noah, men being again sown and procreated, therefore he also is recognised as resembling the first man born of the earth, as far as such resemblance or recognition is possible. And the six hundredth year has for its origin the number six; and the world was created under the number six, therefore, by this same number does he reprove the wicked, putting them to shame because he would, unquestionably, never, after he had created the universe by means of the number six, have destroyed all the men who lived on the earth under the form of six, if it had not been for the preposterous excess of their iniquities. For the third power of six and the minor power is the number six hundred, and the mean between both is sixty, since the number ten more evidently represents the likeness of unity, and the number a hundred represents the minor power." Philo, Book 42: Questions and Answers on Genesis, II

Here is a quote from Hippolytus of Rome (170-235).

  But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” (Heb 4:4) For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” (Heb 4:5, Rev 20:6) when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” (2 Pet 3:8, Psa 90:4) Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.” (Rev 17:10) The interpretation by Hippolytus, Daniel


Contradiction between God's mercy being greater than ours and Jesus' harsh words about who will end up in hell We believe that God is supremely good and merciful, far more than we are. At the same time, I see in myself that I would not condemn anyone to hell, even villains like Hitler and Stalin. Perhaps I’d have them spend a long time being purged and making up their faults, but at the end I’d let them into eternal happiness, assuming they want to be there, of course. The only case when someone would be “sent” to hell is if he simply wants to be there and is not willing to change his mind, even upon seeing the entire truth about all reality.

Then, if I feel this way, is it possible to imagine that the good God would be less merciful than this, and not somehow even more? Yet, various passages in the Bible (including Jesus' words in NT) as well as the traditional teaching of the Church suggest just that. That it’s not just total evildoers, people entirely corrupted, ones who would obstinately prefer eternal solitude to eternal connectedness - who go to hell. It seems that it’s also people who slipped up through weakness, who followed their sense of good even when knowing the Church teaches otherwise, or who were not watchful enough.

How to understand this? How to truly love and trust God in Whom there appears to be such a contradiction?

Note: I'm writing this question from a Catholic perspective.

The Apostle Paul outlined for us a definition of Love. Mercy falls under that larger category. So can we measure the degree of Christ’s love by that standard? If Jesus perfectly exemplifies love by his actions, then we must conclude that the motive behind his admonitions about Hell was one of Love.

  Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it
  is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it
  is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not
  delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,
  always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7,
  NIV)

Patience. While hanging on the cross, did Jesus call for legions of angels to rescue him and destroy his enemies? No, he prayed for forgiveness. How long has Christ’s patience persisted? 2,000 years! Yet he says that he will return and execute judgement at that time. Why the delay? Saint Peter told us:

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is
  like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord
  is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.
  Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but
  everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9, NIV)

Kindness. A pastor once told me that kindness is seeing someone else in need and acting to meet that need. What did we need? A savior to take our place, pay for our sins, and rescue us from Hell. We did not need someone telling us lies, like God is not just and will overlook all our sins without anything being done about it. Jesus did the most that anybody can do for another person: he gave his life. No greater sacrifice can be made. No greater mercy can be shown.
Envy, boasting, pride. Jesus refused the devil’s tempting appeals to pride: you deserve an easy life, well protected, in command of the kingdoms of the world. He was silent before his accusers. As Paul said in Philippians:

  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
  something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself
  nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
  likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
  by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Philippians
  2:6-8, NIV)

Who ever gave up so much privilege to serve others as Jesus? That is humility.

Honoring others. Whom did Jesus honor? A tax collector. Women of ill-repute. Peter, who denied him, yet was appointed head of the church, and Paul, a persecutor Of Christians.
Unselfish. Christ was not self-seeking. First, he sought to accomplish his father’s will. Second, he said:

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13, NIV)

Jesus told us how to measure Love. He lay down his life for his friends, thinking not of what it would cost him (selfishness), but what it could accomplish for those he loved (selflessness). He demonstrated ultimate love in two ways: he gave all his life away, and that life, being the life of God, is the most valuable life in the universe.

Protects. I skip ahead to get to the point of the discussion. Jesus protects. What do we ask for in the Lord’s Prayer? Deliver us from evil. The church is always at prayer, saying “protect us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day...” Those who trust in Jesus are protected from the destructive evil within our souls by the sanctification purchased for us. We are also protected from the evil of all who reject that sanctification, hence remain a source of deadly peril. God’s mercy to us is to protect us from all who cling to evil. Imprisoning the unrepentant in Hell enhances God’s mercy, it does not take away from it.

The final question is always: but maybe if people were given just a little more time?

  “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But
  for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
  (Mark 13:20, NIV)

If the wicked are given too much time, then the suffering they cause will become so severe for God’s children that some of them will fall.  In engineering, we call this the point of diminishing returns. God will not let that happen.

On a personal note, when I was younger, a Christian urged me to stop rebelling against a God and warned me about the consequences: I would go to Hell. I needed that warning, and I heeded that warning. Those harsh words saved my soul and set my life on a new path. Which would be more merciful, to be polite and leave me to die in my sins? Or “rejoice with the truth”?


How do Mormons interpret Phillipians 2:6? In the context of the doctrine of exaltation, which says that God was a man who was exalted to Godhead, and Jesus after him, interpret Phillipians 2:6, which says that Jesus was "in the form of God" and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"?

Hmm, the LDS scriptures (the KJV) does not say that. It reads, speaking of Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

In this case, the Bible translation matters. These verses are about Jesus' condescension.
Mormons definitely believe that becoming like God is something to aspire to.


What is the scriptural basis for the Holy Spirit speaking to you through other people's words? Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that something that someone has said is working on multiple levels. On the surface level they're talking about whatever makes sense in the context of the conversation, but on another level, it feels like they are speaking to a specific thing relevant to my spiritual life.

For instance, I have a bad habit I am trying to quit. I have prayed for God's help. Some days I feel like I really don't want to quit and I fall back into the habit. Then later the same day I'll be talking to another Christian about the weather and they might mention that it's windy and I'd say, "Well, that's Texas for you." And they would reply, "Yeah, it's not going to quit."

In that instance I felt like it was the holy spirit speaking, talking about me going back into my habit even after asking for help to quit. It was saying I wasn't going to quit. Considering the wind is used many times in the Bible as a symbol of God's presence in the world it seems even more likely.

What is the biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit speaks through the words of other people, even those not meant to be advice?

I do not think that there is any direct scriptural basis for God speaking through other people. This means that (to my knowledge) there is not a specific Bible verse that iterates this crystal clear.

But after close inspection, you can see that God speaks in miraculous ways. He used Balaam to speak. Even though Balaam was not a Christian, and was rebellious, God used miraculous ways to speak.

Know I know this isn't exactly the kind of situation you're talking about, but it is something to think about. God will talk to you in many different ways.

Sometimes while I'm coding, I'll listen to (christian) music as well. Twice in the course of a half-hour, the words I was typing matched with the song. And it just got me thinking, "Wow, God is amazing. He can use any method to speak." He can use any method he wants to talk to you. Dreams, other people, even sitting down in your room! Yeah, that happened. God uses amazing ways to accomplish his will. And if speaking to you is His will, it'll get done.


Help in calculating cousin degree according to Catholic Church This post is a follow-up from here.

I have a distant cousin who have a relationship with me as follows: My dad's sister is a first or second cousin with her uncle, though my dad and her uncle are not related. What would be the degree of kindship be between her and myself (please give 2 answers, one for 1st and another for 2nd)? I am a little confused about the chart answer from the above question.

The mode of calculation for canon law from the link in the previous question is reasonably clear.

The number of degrees is the number of people of the longer line of descent between you and your girlfriend back to but not including the first ancestor common between you.
You must be separated by at least 5 degrees.

You've been unbelievably unclear about your ancestry.  Not a little unclear, astronomically unclear.  Why are you complicating things by talking about your father's sister and your girlfriend's uncle?  Is your aunt not a blood relative of your father?  Is your girlfriend's uncle not a blood relative of one of her parents?  What does it mean that your father and your girlfriend's uncle are not related?  Do your father and his sister not share a parent?  Please note my concluding statement, below.

Anyway, all you need to do is draw a chart of your family tree back to the first common ancestor and count the number of generations between you and that common ancestor (count every person in the line, including yourself and the common ancestor, and subtract 2).  Do it for both you and your girlfriend.  If both numbers are 5 or more, you're good to go.  If either isn't, you're good friends.

Based only on what you've told us, you're separated by 2 or 3 degrees, max.

However, if your girlfriend's uncle is actually an uncle-in-law (someone married to your girlfriend's aunt), then the two of you may not be related by blood at all.  You need an accurate family tree, and you haven't provided one.

Please note that an analysis of your specific family tree is off-topic for this site and will not be considered.  The question of how Canon Law calculates degrees (assuming I'm right) has been answered.


What properties does Christianity attribute to God What are the claimed properties of God that define Christianity, and what is the basis or reason for each attribution?

This is a pretty broad question, and you have to understand that there are varying views within Christianity.  There's no one, single understanding, but here is a fairly comprehensive list.  Assume in this list that it applies to most groups within Christianity unless otherwise noted.  I'm going to ignore such groups a s "Christian Atheists" (Who would answer with one attribute: "Imaginary".) or "Christian witches" and focus on more mainstream commonly accepted Christian circles.

Also, in the interest of brevity, I'm going to NOT directly include "what is the basis" for each.  Instead, I'm linking on each to an article that explores each attribute in further detail.  The basis for each attribute is, ultimately, Scripture.  Most of the articles linked to offer several verses supporting each attribute.

Omniscient:  God is all knowing, without limitation - even as far as past/present go.  He knows all that has ever happened and all that will.  He knows each star that he created, by name.
Omnipotent:  God is infinite in His power.  He can do anything.

Some would say that this means Intrinsically possible.  Misunderstandings of the definition of "Omnipotent" lead to foolish questions like "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?"
Others believe that this limitation doesn't apply, and God id limited only by His own perfect nature ans will.

Omnibenevolent - God is purely good.  There is no evil in Him.  Note that this doesn't mean purely kind.  He is not limited to our personal understanding of what "good" is.  Put simply, God knows more than we, in our limited capacity do.  What we might consider "cruel" or "not fair" may be good.  Just like a child might not understand why his parents discipline him for dangerous behavior, we may not understand why God does what he does.

  Side note #1: Taking a break in the list here, many atheists use the above three attributes to come up with arguments that God couldn't
  possibly be all three, or evil wouldn't exist.  That's addressed
  here.

Sovereign:  God is completely sovereign.  he answers to nobody, and everybody answers to Him.

There is some debate on what this means for free will.  Some say that free will is an illusion because if we had any free will, Cod's sovereignty would be nullified  In other words, He is in complete and total control.  Others say that He grants us free will, but he could assert His sovereignty at any time.  There are other views as well.
Some also use god's sovereignty to show that God is evil because He allows suffering.  Again, see side note #1.

Infinite:  God is without limits.  He is limited only by His will and what is intrinsically possible.
Patient (aka longsuffering):  God is slow to anger, quick to forgive.  Which is good, because when I look at my own behavior over my lifetime, I can't help but think that, were I in God's place, I'd have been a crispy critter long ago.
Holy: God is separate from sin and is completely, utterly, incorruptible.
Impeccable:  Strongly related to holiness, God is completely unable to sin.
Immutable: God Cannot change.

Side note, skeptics sometimes point to verses that showed that God repented and decided not to smite this group or that.  That's addressed here.

Omnipresent: God is everywhere, always, all at once.
Transcendent: God exists outside space and time or anything else he has made.  he is not limited by either.
Immanent: Closely related to "Omnipresence":  God is always near.
Jealous:  God is jealous of glory due Him being given to another god, and righteously so.  This is to be distinguished from petty jealousy (envy).
Righteous: God is completely Right, or Just.  It is His righteousness that demands that sin not go unpunished.  (Would you consider a judge to be righteous if he let a murderer go free out of love?  No, you'd call that a corrupt judge.  in the same way, God cannot be righteous if he allows sin to go unpunished.)
Wrathful:  God's wrath, when unleashed, is unparalleled. His wrath is directed toward sin, evil, unrighteousness.
Love:  While God's wrath is terrifying, his love is amazing.  It is his love that is expressed in the fact that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  The cross is the ultimate expression of his love for us.
Incorporeal: Scripture tells us that god is spirit, and has no physical body.

Note that this is something that some groups, such as the LDS church disagree with.

Triune: God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Pretty much undisputed in mainstream Christianity, understood differently in LDS theology, and refuted utterly by other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And finally....

Incomprehensible: God is so far above us that we can never know or understand Him fully.  All we can know or understand is what He has revealed, and even that is filtered through our own interpretations.


In Christianity is food recommended to be consumed using left hand? While reading "Robertsoner Ruby", one of the Bengali detective stories from the Feluda Series, I found out that the investigator there finds out a character to be a Christian (which the character himself never disclosed till that point) when he observes that the character is consuming food using his left hand on three separate occasions. Now, this observation turns out to be correct too and eventually it also proves decisive in solving the case.
But I was surprised the way the detective has concluded and hence this question here.

Is it really true that in Christianity food is recommended to be consumed using the left hand?

Please cite some verses from scriptures in support of your answers, either to prove or disprove the claim.

There are no rules in Christianity about which hand you eat with. As NigelJ writes, Christianity does not consider how you eat to be important (see Matthew 15). Such rules as there were under Judaism were abolished in Christianity (and those Jewish rules did not prohibit eating with any hand).

So, given this, allow me to explain the story you read.

While there are no rules about which hand to eat with in Christianity, there is a prohibition on eating with the left hand in Islam, and I believe in Hinduism, which are the majority religions in India. So if the character had been Hindu or Muslim he would not have eaten with his left hand. Since he did, the detective deduced he is not Hindu or Muslim, in which case it's a fair bet that he is Christian, which is the third place religion. (Statistically speaking there are other alternatives, but that doesn't make for a good detective story).

So the deduction wasn't about rules in Christianity, but about Hindu and Islamic rules.


Do we have the right ten commandments? While we usually refer to Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, and many versions of the Bible add the heading "The Ten Commandments", the phrase is not actually used there in the text of the Bible. (It does, however, appear later on, in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4). Also, while we know that the original ten commandments were written in stone, the commandments in Exodus 20 are not written in stone. This happens in Exodus 24:12.

How do we know that these were the Ten Commandments given that the "Ten Commandments" were not referenced as such until later on?

This question (and its accepted answer) nicely addresses the differences in interpretations of Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, but how can we be sure that the Ten Commandments are what's listed in Exodus 20?

Furthermore, I once heard it suggested that what's written in Exodus 20 - the "you shall not"s - are promises, not commandments. This makes sense, especially as there follow some instructions that definitely are commandments (Exodus 20:23 onwards) - "do not"s instead of "you shall not"s.

Why the difference in language ("you shall not / do not")?

I think one good way we can look at this and understand that that section was commandments instead of promises is by letting other parts of Scripture that either reference or comment on it help define it.

For example in the NT we find Jesus giving a sermon and instructing people on the way they should live. In several cases he clearly references the statements we find in Exodus 20 and expounds on them to show the scope of the commandments is even larger than sometimes understood.

  Mathew 5:27-28 (ESV)
  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This is clearly a reference to Exodus 20:14, and using Jesus understanding of it and how other people in Scripture used that passage in their own teaching, we can understand that it was indeed a command.


Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation? James 2:24 NIV
  24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In James we are told that a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith.  Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?

You say "a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith".  I'm not sure this is a necessary reading of the Biblical passage. You quote 2.24: I think verse 18 is more useful for interpreting James' account of the relationship between faith and works:

  But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2.18 (NRSV)

It isn't that faith and works are separately required – prerequisites, if you like – for salvation. It's much more that James sees them as inseperable.  You can't go round saying "I have faith, so ignore what I do: I've saved."  What you do, for James, demonstrates your faith.  If you have faith, you will do good works.  If you have faith in Jesus Christ, that faith will transform you and it will transform the way you act. A genuine faith is shown by the fact that the person does good works.  A faith that isn't seen in works is, as far as James is concerned, dead:

  For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

James 2.26 (NRSV)

Or, as Martin Luther would have it (despite his well known views on the Book of James...):

  Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.

An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans (1522)

James is reacting against a tendency – which has come up time and time again in Christianity – to ignore how Christians act because in Christ all sin is forgiven, or because salvation is predestined.  The tendency – commonly known as antinomianism (ἀντί against + νόμος law) – has been seen as heretical pretty much by all Christian groups throughout history.

I don't think James is undermining the significance of faith, but he is saying that it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum where it has no effects in a Christian's behaviour.


Did Abraham pass or fail in God's test? The story about Abraham sacrificing Isaac: Gen 21:12

  But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your
  slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through
  Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

and later: Gen 22:2

  Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and
  go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on
  a mountain I will show you.”

Abraham used to dispute with God previously (Gen 18:23). If he listened, shouldn't he answer something like "And what about his offsprings, huh?"

Couldn't be the point something like Do you remember what I told you? It is hard to believe that the message is Be fanatic. The Gen 22:12 could be a polite way how to say Stop it, fool!

I'd like to know if there is some inconsistency in this explanation and consequently: if Abraham passed or fail his test.

Hebrews 11 explains that this was a test of faith: (KJV)

  17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that
  had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

  18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

  19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;
  from whence also he received him in a figure.

and given that this passage in Hebrews is specifically showing good examples of faith, to illustrate the importance of faith, it's fairly safe to say that, according to the author of Hebrews, Abraham passed the test.


Why do Catholics bow for icons of the Virgin Mary? It doesn't surprise me when orthodox Christians bow for icons of the Virgin Mary, since they believe that she is present in the icon. But why do (some) Catholics also bow for icons of Mary?

There are numerous pages on the internet like this one where the author argues against this gesture. The reasoning is that it's against the commandment from Ex 20:4-5:

  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

However, I cannot find arguments against this position. I guess there are, but what are they?

First off, Catholics do not believe Mary is "present in the icon" in the same way we believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist in a particularly physical way (the Eucharist, or physical incarnation of Jesus on Earth, is the only actual physical thing that Catholics worship to my knowledge). Though Mary, like all the other saints (and of course our omniscient God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), have the power to be present in the world with us, she is not uniquely present in an icon.

Also keep in minds that Catholics do not worship Mary. Worship is reserved only for God, the Holy Trinity. Mary is still a human like us, but also a saint, and she is the most highly revered of all the saints because she represents the perfect model of a Christian fidelity through God's gift to her of being born without original sin, and by her perfect example of obedience to God's will as evidenced in the Bible (you can find more info on that topic here).

So why do we bow, kneel before, or what is better known as "venerate" icons of the Blessed Virgin Mary (or to other icons for that matter)?

An icon is distinct from an idol in that one does not worship the icon or image, but recognizes that it helps us as mortals keep our minds fixed on our prayer toward God through the saints (or Mary in this instance). To expand on this, we believe that Mary, as the only mother of God, has a unique relationship with her son that allows her to intercede for humans in the outpouring of God's graces. We honor Mary and other saints because they are already in Heaven and have this power to intercede for us in a unique way, though one must keep in mind that Mary and the saints have absolutely no power on their own, and that all power and graces come from God.

Icons are symbols or reminders of these facts and serve to help us stay in a holy frame of mind in a similar way to how music enhances our liturgical worship. So though icons are not necessary for prayer, they can be worship aids that greatly enhance our perception of God and the saints among us. This could be extended in a loose sense to why we like to make churches beautiful: to remind us that God is with us and that He is beautiful to the greatest extreme. But no matter what, icons should never, ever become objects of worship- that is idolatry.

Certain icons/images have a more important distinction among the faithful through their miraculous or supernatural origins, Our Lady of Guadalupe  being one such famous example. Because of this, they are generally considered greater representations and reminders of God's greatness and His power to elevate the saints, especially Mary, as models and intercessors for us.

So to answer your question, Catholics bow to images/icons of Mary not because she is present in them, but because of what they represent: the fact that Mary holds the highest position among the saints and her unique role of intercessor for humans. The images are reminders of this fact.

Please keep in mind, my say is not the final say by any means, and there is much more to the theology behind the practice of veneration of images, so I would recommend to do a bit more research if you still have questions (or leave comments and I'll do my best).


In the Catholic Church's calender, what are Solemnities, Feasts, and Memorials? In researching for this question: Anne and Joachim are the parents of Mary - is this a Catholic dogma? | @H3br3wHamm3r81, I came across

  Each year the Church venerates the memory of Saints Anne & Joachim on
  July 26th.

And the day was termed a Memorial.

Looking through the Church's calender, celebrations were termed Solemnities, Feasts, and Memorials.

Are these all the terms that can be applied to a celebration?

What distinguishes these terms, and how does a celebration get a particular term?

Christʼs saving work is celebrated in sacred memory by the Catholic Church on fixed
days throughout the course of the year. Through the yearly cycle the Church unfolds the entire mystery of Christ and keeps the anniversaries of the saints. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God.

As the events which are celebrated are multiple, with different degrees of importance, a ranking of celebrations has been developed:

Sunday: it's the most important because on Sunday, the Lord's Day, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery, having its origin from the day of Christʼs resurrection. Because of its special importance, the Sunday celebration gives way only to solemnities or feasts of the Lord.
Solemnities: these are the principal celebration days after Sundays. Easter and Christmas are the most known.
Feasts: a third degree. For example, saint John on the 27th of December.
Memorials: they can be either obligatory or optional. On Saturdays in Ordinary Time when there is no obligatory memorial, an optional memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary is allowed.

Excerpt from the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, set by Pope Paul VI.
Note: in its article no. 59 you may find a most useful table of liturgical days.


Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? This question may seem ridiculous at first glance, but bear with me... As I learn more about Calvinism and Arminianism I am struck with the notion that they are each based on Scripture, and each emphasize important elements of the teachings of Scripture.

From what I understand, Calvinists believe that God has predestined some to Paradise and some to Hell; They believe that functionally the blood of Christ will only cleanse those who are in Christ; They believe that it is impossible for a man to prevent God from doing what He has purposed to do; They believe that those who are predestined for Paradise will most certainly arrive in Paradise.
From what I understand, Arminians believe that God predestines some to Paradise, but His decision is based on foreknowledge of something about that person; They believe that Christ died to provide salvation to anyone and everyone, if they will accept it; They believe that man can choose to reject the grace of God; They believe that those who come to Christ have a responsibility to continue in faith or they will no longer be "in Christ".
Both believe that we are all messed up from birth and unable to choose to do good aside from God's intervention.

My question is: Are these two views really incompatible?

Frankly, I think I believe all of the things listed above. Is it possible that both doctrines are rooted in Scripture and each camp could grow in their understanding by learning from teachers on "the other side of the table"? Or, is there something fundamentally incompatible about these two views that extends beyond semantics and strawman arguments?

Please stick with the standard, classical views, and avoid discussions about "hyper-Calvinism" and other fringe interpretations of these two doctrines.

Also, please let me know if I have misrepresented the views of either camp.

Background
Although Calvinism and Arminianism are often presented as polar opposites, they have a common heritage. Jacobus Arminius studied under Calvinist teachers and was himself a Calvinist when he began his ministry. So it's not a surprise that the two systems share a common framework.
But Arminius eventually questioned some of the tenets of Calvinism, and his disciples published a document titled Five Articles of Remonstrance outlining what they believed Calvin had gotten wrong. Calvinists in response developed their own five points, which have become well known by the acronym TULIP.
Differences
The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism is expressed in these five points, but at the core, there is really only one significant, irreconcilable difference between these systems.
Calvinists believe God alone determines who is saved and who is not, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Arminians believe that God expects us to cooperate with him in order to bring about our salvation, that God will not save someone against that person's will. There is no way to reconcile these two positions.
Calvinists and Arminians also disagree about God's fundamental character. For Calvinists, God's sovereignty is his most important attribute. For Arminians, God's most important attribute is his love.
This is not to say that Calvinists believe God is not loving, or that Arminians believe God is not sovereign. But a Calvinist would reject any teaching (e.g., libertarian free will) that might imply God is not completely sovereign. Likewise, an Arminian would reject any teaching (e.g., limited atonement) that might imply God is not completely loving.
In other words, this is not necessarily an irreconcilable difference; a case can be made that the difference is more a matter of emphasis than of complete disagreement.
Similarities
Despite their differences, both Calvinists and Arminians share a faith in the same Christ. We use the same Bible and we both take it seriously. We share a common heritage going back through the early Reformers. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be equally comfortable with the professions of the Nicene Creed and other early ecumenical statements of faith.
Calvinism and Arminianism are defined as theological systems solely in how they differ from each other, but the points we have in common are much more numerous than our differences.
Summary
Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? Not if the goal is to agree on all our theology. But if the goal is to worship and glorify Christ, then Calvinists and Arminians both have something to contribute, and we can learn a lot from each other.


How does Swedenborgianism understand Amos 3:2, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth"? If you can be so kind, please help me understand Amos 3:2:

  You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.

My understanding is that Swedenborg writes that God knew pre-Israelite people (or families); e.g., in historical order, the Most Ancient church (i.e., the church of Adam), the Ancient Church, the Israelite church, etc.

Yet, In Amos 3:2 we have, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth."

How is this reconciled in Swedenborgian theology?

The five "churches," or religious eras, of humankind

According to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), there have been five major "churches," or religious eras, in the spiritual history of humankind. In the traditional English translations of his original Latin terms, they are known as:

The Most Ancient Church (from Adam to the Flood)
The Ancient Church (from the Flood to the Egyptian captivity)
The Israelitish Church (from the Exodus to the birth of Christ)
The first Christian Church (from the birth of Christ until 1757)
The new Christian Church, or New Jerusalem Church (from 1757 onward, represented by Revelation 21-22 in the Bible)

These "churches" are not denominations, but rather key religious dispensations that, in their time, form the closest link with God among the various nations, cultures, and religions of humankind.

Swedenborg's commentary on Amos 3:2

Amos 3:2 reads:

You only have I known
  of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
  for all your iniquities. (NRSV)

Swedenborg did not write a full commentary on the book of Amos. There are scattered explanations of some of the verses in that book. However, the only direct commentary by Swedenborg on Amos 3:2 is found in his unpublished manuscript, Draft on the Inner Meaning of Prophets and Psalms. As its title indicates, this manuscript provides a very brief and sketchy running spiritual sense commentary on all of the Prophets of the Old Testament, and on the Psalms.

The commentary on Amos 3:1-2 in Prophets and Psalms (#203) reads:

  The church was instituted solely with the Israelitish nation, therefore falsities and evils must be examined there.

The meaning of Amos 3:2 based on Swedenborg's theology

As indicated in the above quote from Prophets and Psalms, from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology, Amos 3:2 is speaking poetically of the Israelite nation and religion as the key "church" or religious dispensation of its time. So when it says, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," it is speaking of the Israelite people as the "church" or religious dispensation where God most fully revealed the divine truth to the world during that time period.

It is not saying that God had no awareness of the earlier or later religious dispensations, or of the other nations, cultures, and religions of the world. Rather, it is saying that God had a special relationship with the Israelite people among all the then-existing peoples of the earth.

This is in line with the meaning of the meaning and connotations of the Hebrew word יָדַע (yada`), "to know," which does not generally mean mere intellectual knowledge, but rather experiential knowledge, and often a direct relationship with the one known. For example, יָדַע is the word used in Genesis 4:1:

  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived . . . (KJV, italics added)

Similarly, in Amos 3:2 the word "know" is speaking of a special, close relationship between God and the Israelite people.

This relationship, Swedenborg said, lasted from when the Israelite nation first formed at the time of the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai until the time of the coming of Christ, when Christianity superseded ancient Judaism as God's primary "church" or religious dispensation on earth.

Summary

From the perspective of Swedenborgian theology, then, the resolution of the issue posed in the question is that Amos 3:2 is speaking of "all the families of the earth" that existed during the era of the ancient Jewish or Israelite religious dispensation.

At that time, the Israelite nation was, among all the nations and religions of the earth, the one with which God had a special relationship, and through which God provided the revelation that forms the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament.


Quote like "Anyone can endure an insult but it takes a saint to pass through praise unharmed" I read this quote several times quickly in unrelated places and didn't take down the reference because I assumed it to be popular enough for me to find it easily through google. Now I can't find it. Does anyone know who said this? I believe it was an Orthodox Christian.

The quote comes from "THE LADDER OF DIVINE ASCENT" by St John Climacus.

http://www.prudencetrue.com/images/TheLadderofDivineAscent.pdf

On page 73

  People of high spirit bear offence nobly and gladly, but only holy people and saints can pass through praise without harm.


Is there any scripture or literature exploring why God chose not to annihilate Satan? For that matter, why aren't we annihilated if we reject Jesus?  Particularly if there is no posthumous "second chance?"

For the record, I resonate with C.S. Lewis' notion that, perhaps, the "doors of hell are locked from the inside," but I would love to know more about scripture and other works that explore this territory.

Yes, there is.
What happens to Satan?
The New Testament is the story of Christ's victory over sin and death. This happened with his death and resurrection, but the final accomplishment of his victory is delayed until the end of time. Matthew 25:31-46 quotes Jesus saying that at that time, he will return to judge all people.
1 Corinthians 15:22-26 explains (NIV):

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

The book of Revelation covers this topic in detail. Towards the end (20:10) we read:

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This is the final end of the devil (and of hell and death, 20:14, and "anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life", 20:15). God's choice for Satan is not annihilation, but eternal suffering, and that only begins once the "heavens and earth pass away" (21:1). Until then, Satan remains active in the world and retains the ability to tempt people.
Can God annihilate Satan, or anything else?
The glib answer is "Sure, why not?". Aquinas taught that God certainly can annihilate anything (Summa Theologica 104.3) on the grounds that God is omnipotent. But he then (104.4) quotes Ecclesiastes 3:14,

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it.

to say that he chooses not to.
Why eternal torment, not just annihilation?
Augustine discusses this in City of God 21.11. His basic argument is that our sin (equally, the devil's) is deserving of infinite punishment because it is an offence against God, and therefore infinitely severe. Aquinas (Summa Theologica 99.1) expounds some other reasons as well:

For he who falls into mortal sin of his own will puts himself in a state whence he cannot be rescued, except God help him: wherefore from the very fact that he is willing to sin, he is willing to remain in sin for ever. [...] Thus if a man were to throw himself into a pit whence he could not get out without help, one might say that he wished to remain there for ever, whatever else he may have thought himself.
Another and a better answer is that from the very fact that he commits a mortal sin, he places his end in a creature; and since the whole of life is directed to its end, it follows that for this very reason he directs the whole of his life to that sin, and is willing to remain in sin forever, if he could do so with impunity.

Aquinas also says that since, once you have died, you no longer have the ability to choose, you are equally deserving of punishment or reward at any future point after your death. Some people do think that God's mercy will extend to forgiving all people, and even Satan himself, or that we will get another chance after death to accept God. Augustine doesn't have a very good argument against it - he just calls them "tender-hearted" and moves on. This area is highly contested even today.
There is a sense, then, in which being in hell forever is a fitting end for those who choose it (as Judas is called "the one who chose to be lost" or "the son of perdition" in John 17:12). Under the interpretation of hell as eternal separation from God, those who have chosen to be separated from God (by remaining in sin) get exactly what they wanted, except it turns out not be as nice as they had hoped.
This is pretty much exactly what Dante describes in the Divine Comedy. In his Hell, the punishment sinners receive isn't some ironically appropriate retribution - it is the sin itself, but without any comforting illusion. It's also what Lewis writes about in The Great Divorce, except that he imagines people being able to choose even after death. Lewis's grey city is just what its inhabitants want it to be, unfortunately.


Discrepancy between Yahweh (Christian Bibles) and Eh-yeh (Torah) I am currently working on a religious drama and outsmarted myself. I come to you for help.

Growing up Jewish, I did not hear the term Yahweh until I was 14 in Western Civilization. "Well, you know, right? It's, you know, God." And my reply, "I have no idea what you're talking about, and seriously, there isn't even a w in Hebrew so try again." Nor in Ancient Greek! Although, some would say the Hebrew letter vav can behave like a w.

Next, my Torah portion included Exodus 3:14 (and I gotta tell you, reading off an animal skin scroll is cool!). It says Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh. Even among Jews, there is some controversy because of limitations within Hebrew of future tense. However, "I shall be what I shall be" is without fault as an English translation of the Hebrew. Certainly the Christian Bible "I am who [what] I am" is a very different statement. The Torah has been meticulously transcribed letter by letter for 2600 years

So I asked a (Conservative) rabbi. We agreed the line from Exodus 3:14 contained neither a Yah nor a weh. "So, Rabbi, where does this word come from?" She says, "Well it really has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14. Here read this." And I read, "Barukh atah Adonai--"

"You can stop there," she says. "The third word does not state 'Adonai.' Why do you say that?" And my response is "Because that [what I read] is how we spell our Lord's name on paper--probably to prevent us from being insulting." And she says "And what does it actually read?" My Hebrew is not so great but I manage "Yeh-vah?" She says, "That's the best I can do."

Although I might benefit from seeing a Protestant minister, I wound up with a visit at a nearby Catholic Church. Although we came to no further conclusion on the matter, we agreed that Yeshua was an awfully nice Hebrew name.

I've read quite a bit over the years on the subject. Most of the commentary is either too mystical or too one-sided to be useful to my project or me.

Specifically, how did "Yahweh" become a word of such prominence in Western literature and lexicon?

I've redacted the latter part of my question, and thank you for your information thus far.

For clarification, I'll add: YHVH, or whatever you want to call it, is little more than a placeholder in modern Hebrew prayers; it is simply not said, and has been further redacted to YY. I've seen it a million times, but I just say Lord ("Adonai"). The idea that the placeholder held any real significance was lost on me until much later in life. I do not know what was spoken in biblical times, but that doesn't matter. The discussion of Jehovah below is helpful, but as long as I'm still open for business ...

Edit: I recently asked an Orthodox rabbi. Orthodox Judaism tends to be more mystical, if you will (Chabad.org). The response: "It is actually one of many names for the Divine. ... It was not used in general prayers during the times of the Temple [Kings]. ... It is unknown what was spoken during the time of Moses."

Here is a basic answer:

In Exodus 3:14, אֶֽהְיֶה (eh-yeh, a form of the Hebrew verb "to be") is used as part of what today would be considered a folk etymology of the most sacred Hebrew name of God, called the "Tetragrammaton": יהוה as it appears in the original unpointed (no vowels) Hebrew manuscripts. Eh-yeh is not itself the commonly used name for God in the Hebrew Bible. It is used in Exodus 3:14 only to give meaning to the Tetragrammaton, which is the common, but very sacred, name for the God of the ancient Hebrews. The force and basic meaning of the etymology in Exodus 3:14 is that God is called יהוה from the verb "to be": God is the one who is or who, in more modern philosophical terms, is the ultimate reality and the self-existing (uncreated) being.

In the Hebrew Bible, this name is usually pointed (given vowels) as: יְהֹוָה or Yĕhovah in English pronunciation. It is translated as "Jehovah" in some English Bibles.

However, that pronunciation is not based on how it was originally pronounced at the time the Hebrew Bible was written. As the Rabbi pointed out to you, when יְהֹוָה appears in the Hebrew Bible, Jews regularly read it as "Adonai" instead. The Hebrew for Adonai is אֲדֹנָי. And that is where the vowel pointings commonly used for יְהֹוָה in today's Hebrew Bibles come from (with a slight variation due to how various Hebrew letter combinations take vowels).

In other words, the word that is traditionally transliterated into English as "Jehovah" (or as "LORD" in small caps in the KJV and other traditional English bibles) is actually a combination of the consonants from the Tetragrammaton יהוה and the vowels from the Hebrew word "Adonai," which means "Lord."

You see, the Tetragrammaton was, and still is today, considered too sacred to be pronounced by most religious Jews. So when they encounter it in the Bible, they say "Adonai" instead. And the vowels, which were added later, reflect that substitution of "Adonai" for the Tetragrammaton when reading.

Because of this tradition of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, which stretches back over two thousand years, we do not know for sure how it was originally pronounced. "Yahweh" is what most scholars now think was the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton—which is why that pronunciation is commonly used in scholarly circles and among some groups of Christians.


What animals were in Eden? Is there any mention of actually what animals were in Eden? Is any mentioned beside the serpent? Is there any  mention of what animals were eaten, if any?

No, only that after God created Adam he was tasked with naming the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air: “He [God] brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field” (Genesis 2:19-20).

The only mention of eating animals is in Genesis 9:3 and this is after Noah and his family emerge from the Ark: “The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.  Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.  Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything”.   This suggests that meat was now permissible to eat.

There is no clash with the creation account that I can see.  All the land, sea and air creatures had been created by the time God created Adam.