If you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, then what is it? What do Bible verses that reference the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God mean? Question: If you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, then what is it?
The Bible includes over 100 verses that mention the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God or just the Spirit. Here are four examples:
Genesis 1:1-2 NIV:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth
was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and
the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

John 14:26 NIV:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
have said to you.

Matthew 12:32 NIV:

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but
anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either
in this age or in the age to come.

John 16:7-15 NIV:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he
hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me
because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to
you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the
Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

When reading translations of scripture, it is important to remember that the original Greek and Hebrew text didn't use capital letters to personify the "holy spirit" expression.
It is the translators, inspired by the Trinity doctrine, that decided to add the capitalization.
Similarly, the use of "he", "who", etc. rather than "it", "which", etc. in reference to God's spirit is also a decision of the translators.
For instance, Jewish translations of the Hebrew scriptures do not capitalize "spirit" nor refer to it as "he".
Compare the passage quoted in the question:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
All that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

with what it looks like without personification:

But when it, the spirit of truth, comes, it will guide you into all the truth.
It will not speak on its own; it will speak only what it hears, and it will tell you what is yet to come.
It will glorify me because it is from me that it will receive what it will make known to you.
All that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the spirit will receive from me what it will make known to you.”

Both translations are equally correct, but depend on the influence, or lack thereof, of the Trinity doctrine.
Anyone reading the second version would have no reason to even suspect that "spirit" refers to a sentient living being.
It doesn't, but the "spirit" in this passage could just as easily be referring to "The Bible" in the way the words are used here.
Read in this way, God's spirit is simply a spiritual force that belongs to God and through which God acts.
The expression is treated no differently than "God's finger" or "God's judgement" would be.

Allowing preconceived ideas to influence one's understanding is known as eisegesis (using scripture to confirm what one knows).
Looking at scriptures without the influence of preconceived ideas is known as exegesis (using scripture to derive what one knows).

In terms of strengthening one's existing faith, eisegesis can help and exegesis can hurt.
But in terms of objective translation, eisegeis is bad and exegesis is good.


Was John the Baptist Elijah? This should be straightforward, as John the Baptist explicitly says that he isn't:

  John 1:19-21 (ESV)
   19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20  He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."

However, Jesus has something to say about the matter, too:

  Matthew 11:13-14 (ESV)
   13  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

So was he Elijah or not? Why do Jesus and John say such different things?

Malachi had prophesied that “Elijah” would prepare the way for the
  Messiah (Mal. 3:1; 4:5). He did not actually
  imply only a literal reappearance of Elijah, and John’s earlier denial
  that he was Elijah (John 1:21) was probably an attempt to correct a
  popular belief that Elijah himself would reappear. Before John’s
  birth, he was designated as the one who would minister in the “spirit
  and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), thereby fulfilling Malachi’s
  prophecy.

Crossway Bibles: The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL : Crossway Bibles, 2008, S. 1842

  John the Baptist, preacher of repentance and faith, was accordingly
  the Elijah who was to come. Like the Elijah of old, John too was a
  preacher of repentance. The two resembled each other also in the
  sudden character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their
  message, and the simplicity of their life. See on Matthew 3:3. True, John was
  not literally Elijah (John 1:21), but inwardly he was indeed, for “he
  went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), and was
  therefore called Elijah by no one less than Jesus himself (Matt.
  17:12).

Hendriksen, William ;   Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 9), S. 490

  When asked: “Are you Elijah?” John clearly answered: “I am not.”
  (John 1:21) It had, however, been foretold that John would precede the
  Messiah “with Elijah’s spirit and power.” (Luke 1:17; Malachi 4:5, 6)
  In other words, John the Baptizer was Elijah in the sense that he
  carried out a work comparable to that of Elijah.

Watchtower 2001 5/1 Box on p. 22 DOES THE BIBLE TEACH REINCARNATION?


How to determine a genuine call from God? Imagine one day a person hears voices like God speaking to him (or as how he would describe as God), with bright lights, angels, burning bushes, and all. It would seem so real for him but only he alone heard or experienced it. And the voice would tell him to sacrifice his son/daughter to God.

Is it moral for him sacrifice his child because of this experience? it might be a test and if he didn't then he would have failed for doubting God. What would a Christian do?

We have Scripture by which we can test these revelations.

  “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream;
  And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully.
  What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the Lord.
  “Is not My word like a fire?” says the Lord,
  “And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
  (Jeremiah 23:28-29)

God calls people within the context of His revelation. If a person tells me out of the blue that God told him this and that, I have no reason to believe him; but if this call came from a context of God showing His presence and power, I need to look more closely.

Since the question refers to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, lets look at the context of that command:

God guided him from his homeland to the place promised to his descendants (Genesis 12)
God promised him a son, though Abraham and Sarah were too old (Genesis 17)
The Lord appeared to Abraham, and Sarah also saw and heard Him (Genesis 18)
The destruction of Sodom and preservation of Abraham's nephew Lot (Genesis 19)
God preserves Sarah from being violated as a result of Abraham's lie (Genesis 20)
A nonbeliever converses with God in a dream concerning Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 20)
Sarah has a son! (Genesis 21)

All of this comes before God tells him to sacrifice his son. God has proven himself to Abraham; Abraham obeyed because he trusted God.

It's much the same way with Jesus -- if you walk up to me and tell me that you are the son of God, I'm not going to believe you -- without anything in your life to support the claim, how can I believe it? But the context of Jesus' life makes it possible (even probable). God reveals Himself, then wants us to trust Him. He doesn't normally demand obedience without showing Himself to be trustworthy (though He does have every right to do so).


Why would witnesses of the crucifixion think Jesus was calling for Elijah? In Mark 15:35, witnesses of the crucifixion thought Jesus was calling for Elijah after He says "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?).

Why would this statement evoke thoughts of Elijah in the people watching?

There are two basic theories here. The first is that the crowd misheard Jesus.  The second is that they purposefully twisted his words to mock him.  Commentators are fairly evenly split on which option is more probable.
Misheard
In the first view, the crowd was at a significant enough distance that they could not hear Jesus clearly.  Additionally, those in the crowd may have been poorly educated and/or Hellenists and therefore did not have a strong command over the Hebrew.  Thus when Jesus said "Eloi" they heard "Eli" which their brains interpreted as "Elias" (=Elijah).   In support of how this would be an easy mistake to make, Ellicott's Commentary cites Matthew 16:14 and Matthew 17:10 which show that it was a common expectation during Jesus' time that Elijah would return at the coming of the Messiah (in reference to Malachi 4:5).

The dominant expectation of the coming of Elijah would predispose men to fasten on the similarity of sound, and the strange unearthly darkness would intensify the feeling that looked for a supernatural manifestation of His presence.

Purposely distorted
The other option is that the crowd heard Jesus alright but seized on the opportunity to mock Jesus.  In this view, the crowd was referencing the same Messianic prophecy (Malachi 4:5), but were essentially saying "even Jesus realizes the prophecy was not fulfilled."  Barnes' Notes writes:

The taunt would be more cutting, because it was the universal belief of the Jews, as well as the doctrine of Christ, that "Elias" would come before the Messiah. They derided him now, as calling upon "Elias" when God would not help him; still keeping up the pretensions to being the Messiah, and invoking "Elijah" to come from the dead to aid him.

Analysis
In my view, a simple misunderstanding is more likely.  In Matthew, the episode continues:

And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” (Matthew 27:47-49, ESV)

It seems that the man offering up the sponge probably heard Jesus correctly and understood He was suffering and tried to help.  The statement by the rest to "wait and see" could be read as further mocking, but to me more naturally suggests a initial misunderstanding, followed by doubt that Elijah would actually come without fully ruling out the possibility.
As the Pulpit Commentary points out, the fact that the insult theory relies on a Jewish audience purposefully distorting the name of God also creates a significant difficulty:

The time of ribaldry and abuse is now past; the supernatural darkness has had a calming and terrifying effect; and there is no spirit of mockery left in the awed bystanders. Besides this, it is not likely that Jews, who with all their errors and vices paid an outward respect to holy things, would have presumed to make a play on the sacred name of God.


Why did this Early Version of the Watchtower Magazine include Crosses, and what do these other Symbols on the Magazine Represent? The following is "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, October 1, 1907."

I was under the impression that symbols (especially crosses) were not allowed in the church. "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was crucified on a stake, and that they reject the cross as a pagan symbol. No crosses are to be displayed in the worship hall, on a person, or in Jehovah's Witnesses' houses" (page 535 of AMG's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Cults, and the Occult).
Question: What do the symbols in the top corners represent, and how are these symbols associated with Watchtower?

The Jehovahs Witness teaching of the symbol of the cross was changed about the 1930's by Joseph Rutherford.
Prior to this they accepted the cross that is widely accepted in Christendom today.
So the magazine would still have a cross on it as it's publication was prior to this time

Facts about Jehovahs Witnesses

As far as the symbolism on the magazine is concerned.  I would at a guess say that the top left hand corner is meant to represent Christ being King.  And the top right as being the guardian or defender of the Watchtower


What is the Roman Catholic position on literally reading the Flood account in Genesis? Elsewhere on this site, the question of whether the Roman Catholic church supported evolution was answered with evidence that the Catholic position is that evolution could be true. That is, because they believe that "truth cannot contradict truth", if scientific truth contradicts literally-read Biblical truth, then a literal reading is likely not the best way to read the passage.

In light of this, what is the Roman Catholic church's position on the Flood? Do they believe that the Flood literally happened, or do they similarly believe that the Flood was not necessarily a literal event?

The Catholic Church does not have an "official" position on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament (including the great flood narration). Whether they are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.

Just because there is no official position on the literal interpretation doesn't mean that Catholics can interpret scriptures to mean anything they want. Catholic interpretation should always be within the boundaries laid down by the church. These boundaries are most importantly guided by church tradition. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.src Catholics believe that the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope) has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.

Just a footnote about the question you referred to: that is about Card. Joseph Ratzinger's position on evolution and is not an official dogmatic teaching of the Church.


Why did the temple in Ezekiel have stairs leading up to the altar? In exodus God expressly forbade going up the stairs to the altar.

  Exodus 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

So why does Ezekiel mention stairs to the altar?

  Ezekiel 43:17: The upper ledge also is square, fourteen cubits long and fourteen cubits wide. All around the altar is a gutter of one cubit with a rim of half a cubit. The steps of the altar face east.

The altar was quite large. Here are some illustrations of Solomon's temple that take biblical and historic record into account:

Image sources:

https://dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/templebronzealtar.jpg
http://www.katehetski-nadbiskupija-split.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/salomonov-hram.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/solomon_temple.jpg
http://www.templemount.org/templesolomon.jpg


How do adherents of sola scriptura respond to "extra" biblical beliefs? "Extra" in the sense that these beliefs were kept by the Jews but not found in the (39 book) old testament, but nevertheless recorded in the new testament books.

  And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23

  Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. Matthew 23:1-2

  When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. Jude 1:9

  Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 2 Timothy 3:8

  Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. James 5:17

Scripture alone simply means that scripture is the sole rule of all things salvific.  It is not about defining the 66 books or more.  Nor is it about defining doctrines therefrom.  It is only about believing that scripture tells us all we need to know about faith and practice.

In determining doctrine (faith and practice), one looks to scripture alone.  We may read other books, consider what early writings reveal, and entertain the thoughts of pious people.  What we won't do is say, because Tradition (whatever that is) informs or a Pope pontificates about something, is to say that the something is on par with scripture in terms of being necessary to one's salvation.  Of the faith, for scripture alone, ([de fide][2]) is found only in scripture.

So, with that definition and clarification in mind, the fact that scripture identifies things not found previous in said scripture really doesn't say anything and has no bearing on sola scriptura.

They asked John the Baptist are you from God or man?  Paul references a poet.  In Acts God laid down a sheet for Peter, which was new.  The names of Jannes and Mambres weren't written in Exodus, but does knowing them impact doctrine?

The OP idea may be trying to suggest that since there is new information written in the NT that was not in the OT that this somehow supports the idea that other things like Tradition or Bulls not in scripture may have something that is necessary for one's salvation.  These things were somehow kept secret from apostles, from eyewitnesses that somehow became necessary centuries later to get to heaven.  This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow.  There are all sorts of problems with Tradition, but that's a different question.


What is difference between God and Jesus Christ in Mark 10:17-19? I have a question about some verses in Bible Mark 10:17-19

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.

In these verses a man came to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and asked some thing by saying him a GOOD TEACHER. In reply Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) said that No one is good except God alone. Mean Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is making difference between himself and God here. Can you please tell me that Who is God here and after God what is the status of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) here because he called God someone other here.

No one is good except God;Jesus wanted this man to realise that if truely believes that Jesus is good then He is God,therefore Jesus proved to this man that Himself was God.


What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit? What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit (or being filled with the Holy Spirit)? Do these two mean the same? I am open to the different views given by the denominations that exist today.

Note:  The answers here will really depend on your doctrinal perspective.

The word baptism is not a translation from the Greek, but a transliteration.  The word was used when describing the dying of fabrics.  The fabric was plunged into the dye and then changed forever as the dye stayed with the fabric.

So, baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to either refer to us being plunged into the Spirit or the Spirit being plunged into us.  Receiving the Holy Spirit, then, would seem to be pretty similar, or perhaps the result of baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps we could say that in baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.


Promises of God that help us partake in His divine nature What are the promises referred to by Peter in 2 Peter 1:4 through which we can partake of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world by lust? What are the views regarding this according to Reformed Theologians and those of the Keswick theology?

The first part of this answer comes from Calvin's Commentaries on 2 Peter 1:1-4.  Before we can address verse 4 we need to deal with the first three verses to put everything into context:

  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
  According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
  Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Verse 1 - Like precious faith, through the righteousness of God:

  This is a commendation of the grace which God had indiscriminately shewed to all his elect people... He adds, through the righteousness of God, in order that they might know that they did not obtain faith through their own efforts or strength, but through God's favor alone.

Verse 2 - Through the knowledge of god and of Jesus our Lord:

  He [Peter] connects together at the same time the knowledge of God and of Christ; because God cnnot be rightly known except in Christ according to that saying.

Verse 3 - All things that pertain unto life and godliness:

  So Peter does not speak hereof thenatural gifts of God, but only mentions those things which he confers perculiarly on his own elect above the common orderof nature... the common conditio of human life is not here referred to, but the peculiar endowments of thenew and Spiritual life, which derive their origin from the kingdom of Christ... he leaves to us not even the least particle of any virtue or merit.  It was Peter's object expressly to ascribe the whole praise of our salvation to God, so that we may know that we owe every thing to him.

Verse 4 - Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:

  It is doubtful whether he refers only to glory and power, or to the preceding things also... the meaning will be, that first the promises of God ought to be most highly valued; and, secondly, that they are gratuitous, because they are offered to us as gifts.  And then he shews the excellency of the promises, that they make us partakers of the divine nature, than which nothing can be conceived better... But we, disregarding empty speculations, ought to be satisfied with this one thing, that the image of God in holiness and righteousness is restored to us for this end, that we may at length be partakers of eternal life and glory as far as it will be necessary for our complete felicity.

  Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/2_peter/1.htm

Another Reformed Theology source of information concerning sanctification says this:

  Two features are central to sanctification: Jesus Christ himself is our sanctification or holiness (1 Cor 1:30); and it is through union with Christ that sanctification is accomplished in us... .  It is those who have received God’s promises who should purify themselves “from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Cor 7:1)  [5] Calvin Institutes 3.1.1.  Source: https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/life/the-reformed-view-of-sanctification

So, what are the "exceeding great and precious promises" that God gives "to them that have obtained like precoious faith"?  All these promises have to do with our salvation.  It is through those promises that believers are made "partakers of the divine nature.  Here are a few:

When we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we are saved (Acts 16:31)

We experience a radical spiritual transformation which comes by virtue of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)

We are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17)

We are born again, spiritually (John 3:3)

We die to our old sinful nature and our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3)

As partakers of the divine nature, believers are made part of God's family (John 1:12)

We are conformed to the image of Christ Jesus (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 6:18)

The greatest promise of all is that believers who have experienced the new birth have the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling them (Romans 8:37; John 14:16) and know that they will never be forsaken (Hebrews 13:5).

This is what empowers the born again believer to "escape the corruption that is in the world by lust".


Do Orthodox churches offer daily Mass? Many Catholic Churches offer Mass every day, sometimes more than once per day. Which other churches do this?
(I'm particularly wondering about the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East)

The short answer is yes, they do.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, what is called "Mass" is usually referred to as "Divine Liturgy" or "Liturgy", although I have seen a Prayer Book from the Antiochian jurisdiction also use the term "Mass".

There is a strict rule within the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, that Divine Liturgy cannot be served at the same altar more than once per day nor by the same priest(s) more than once per day.  Also, the Sunday Liturgy is only served on Sunday - there is no Saturday evening Liturgy that takes the place of Sunday morning (usually on Saturday evening a Vespers service takes place, preceded or followed by Confession).  Large cathedrals and monasteries may have multiple chapels that allow more than one Liturgy to be served on-site each day, but by different priests at different altars. (I seem to recall that there is some ancient Church canon governing this practice, but I cannot find it).

There is nothing prohibiting the Divine Liturgy being served every day, except during those days of the year when there is no Divine Liturgy (e.g. Great and Holy Friday - "Good Friday" in the West).  I think that within most jurisdictions, the bishop tries to have individual parishes schedule at least one Divine Liturgy during the day on different days of the week, so that there is one Liturgy available each day.  Within my parish - which is very small - we have Divine Liturgy three times per week during the normal year, and sometimes every day during the Lenten and Pascal seasons, depending on the calendar.  In addition we have usually have Vespers services on Wednesday and Saturday evenings and on the eves of major feast days.  Many Orthodox monasteries celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day, again depending on the Church calendar.

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate four types of Liturgies:

The Liturgy of St. James, which is very ancient and very long and is now celebrated only during the actual Feast of St. James
The Liturgy of St. Basil, which is quite a bit shorter and is celebrated during special seasons (e.g. Great Lent on Sundays).
The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the "normal" Liturgy
The Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory Diologist (Pope St. Gregory the Great), which is said weekdays during Lent.

I am not completely sure, but I expect that you will find that most or all of what I describe above also applies to Eastern Rite Catholics under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

[Note:  It is not relevant to your question, but I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy, fairly steeped in the western monastic tradition (Benedictine)]


What service is more 'important' in Orthodox Christianity? If you can go to one as an Orthodox Christian, which one would be better to attend?

Holy Thursday - 12 Gospels or
Holy Friday - Lamentations

Lamentations.

And here is why. While the 12 Gospels contains much more theological material, at the end of Lamentations there usually is (at least in my experience) the moment where you enter the church 'under the bier', as though you are entering the grave following Christ, which you only come out of after the procession early on Sunday morning.

So, symbolically in the liturgical dance of the Church, Lamentations is more significant. But The 12 Gospels is probably more pedagogical.


How is Moses' and Jesus' contradictory teaching regarding oaths reconciled? In Deuteronomy Moses teaches to make oaths in the Lord's name:

  Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.
  Deuteronomy 6:13 NIV

  Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.
  Deuteronomy 10:20 NIV

The instructions surprised me because Jesus to take oaths at all and that we should simply say yes or no.

  “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’  But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;  or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
  Matthew 5:33-35, 37 NIV

God urges the people to do one thing and later the polar opposite thing. Surely, there must be something that I've missed.

I recall learning that there was a silly opinion among people that it was okay to break oaths made on the temple gate but it's not okay to break oaths made on the temple coins. Jesus calls out the silliness of that. So is this related to that in a way or the Deuteronomy one needs to be viewed in some context?

How have various theologians resolved this contradiction?

Various creeds and confessions can be utilized in answering a question like this one. A general view has been that Jesus is denouncing or correcting actions that were abusing oaths and the inherent trust meant to be attached to them.

We should also take note of James's teaching in James 5:12 (ESV):

  But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

From the WCF 22 (American Revision):

  A lawful oath is part of religious worship, (Deut. 10:20) wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God
  to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according
  to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth. (Exod. 20:7, Lev.
  19:12, 2 Cor. 1:23, 2 Chron. 6:22–23)
  The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. (Deut.
  6:13) Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and
  dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and
  to be abhorred. (Exod. 20:7, Jer. 5:7, Matt. 5:34, 37, James 5:12)
  Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the
  Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old; (Heb.
  6:16, 2 Cor. 1:23, Isa. 65:16) so a lawful oath, being imposed by
  lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken. (1 Kings 8:31,
  Neh. 13:25, Ezra 10:5)
  Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but
  what he is fully persuaded is the truth: (Exod. 20:7, Jer. 4:2)
  neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good
  and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and
  resolved to perform. (Gen. 24:2–3, 5–6, 8–9)
  An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. (Jer. 4:2, Ps.
  24:4) It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being
  taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. (1 Sam.
  25:22, 32–34, Ps. 15:4) Nor is it to be violated, although made to
  heretics, or infidels. (Ezek. 17:16, 18–19, Josh. 9:18–19, 2 Sam.
  21:1)
  A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed
  with the like faithfulness. (Isa. 19:21, Eccl. 5:4–6, Ps. 61:8, Ps.
  66:13–14)
  It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: (Ps. 76:11, Jer. 44:25–26) and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made
  voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of
  thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want,
  whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to
  other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
  (Deut. 23:21–23, Ps. 50:14, Gen. 28:20–22, 1 Sam. 1:11, Ps. 66:13–14,
  Ps. 132:2–5)
  No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in
  his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of
  ability from God. (Acts 23:12, 14, Mark 6:26, Numb. 30:5, 8, 12–13) In
  which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life,
  professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being
  degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful
  snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself. (Matt. 19:11–12, 1
  Cor. 7:2, 9, Eph. 4:28, 1 Pet. 4:2, 1 Cor. 7:23)

  The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research
  Systems, Inc., 1996).

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

  QUESTION 99.  What is required in the third commandment?

  ANSWER.
  That we must not by cursing, or by false swearing, nor yet by
  unnecessary oaths, profane or abuse the name of God; nor even by our
  silence and connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others;
  and in sum, that we use the holy name of God no otherwise than with
  fear and reverence, so that he may be rightly confessed and worshiped
  by us, and be glorified in all our words and works.

  Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 343–344.

From the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church

  XXXIX  Of a Christian Man’s Oath

  As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden
  Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we
  judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may
  swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity,
  so it be done according to the Prophets’ teaching, in justice,
  judgment, and truth.

  Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical
  Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3
  (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 513–514.

Another helpful teaching can be found in J. I. Packer's Concise Theology:

(Note that he begins by citing Neh 5:12–13.)

  Truth in relationships, especially between Christians, is divinely commanded (Eph. 4:25; Col. 3:9), and truth-telling is specified as integral to authentic godliness (Ps. 15:1–3)…

  Oaths are solemn declarations that invoke God as a witness of one's statements and promises, inviting him to punish should one be lying. Scripture approves oath-taking as appropriate on solemn occasions (Gen. 24:1–9; Ezra 10:5; Neh. 5:12; cf. 2 Cor. 1:23; Heb. 6:13–17), though at the time of the Reformation the Anabaptists declined the practice as part of their rejection of involvement in the life of the secular world. They appeals to Jesus' condemnations of oaths devised and designed to deceive as if it were a rejection of oath-taking as such rather than a call for honest speech and a warning against the temptation to use words that give false impression, with manipulation and exploitation as one's real purpose (Matt. 5:33–37; cf. James 5:12).

  Vows to God are the devotional equivalent of oaths and must be treated with equal seriousness (Deut. 21:23; Eccles. 5:4–6). What one swears or vows to do must at all costs be done (Ps. 15:4; cf. Josh. 9:15–18). God requires us to take seriously not only his words but out own as well. However, "no many may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded" (Westminster Confession XXII.7).

  J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 190–192.


What evidence is there that the Apostle Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin? I remember hearing someone make the claim that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin prior to his conversion to Christianity.  Is there any evidence for this claim?  If so, what is it?

Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin and Paul (then named Saul) was present. The full story is told from Acts 6:8 to 7:60 but the relevant verses are:

Acts 6:12b:

  They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.

(6:15 also shows they were in the Sanhedrin.)

And Paul's presence is shown in 7:58b:

  Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Final note: in Acts 23:6 Paul himself appears before the Sanhderin and calls himself a "Pharisee".


Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics So, I've seen this quoted in The Faith of Millions, and on the Internet

  "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul.  If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him:  ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’  and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’  I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.   I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.

The source always appears to be other Catholic documents, which I don't have. So, before I put this in an upcoming blog post and forever rue that day, could someone tell me if this is a genuine quote?

The text you are referring to does not exist in the form you have quoted.  Rather what you have is a combination of some sentences from a lengthy letter by Luther in response to peevish criticisms that some Catholic sophists were making on Luther’s translation of the Bible into German. Luther seems to be in a ‘bad mood’ about it all, as He had used so much work doing something that his critics were unwilling to even try, and yet had to face their endless criticisms on subjects they knew little about (i.e. the German language) This does tend to make those that actually understand what they are talking about frustrated. Yet Luther’s anger does not seem completely excusable.
Note: I put in bold some of the fragments collected in your quote.
Here is a quote earlier in the letters showing why He is frustrated:

There is a saying, “He who builds along the road has many masters.”10 That is the way it is with me too. Those who have never even been able to speak properly, to say nothing of translating, have all at once become my masters and I must be the pupil of them all. If I were to have asked them how to put into German the first two words of Matthew’s Gospel, Liber Generationis,11 none of them would have been able to say Quack!12 And now they sit in judgment on my whole work! Fine fellows!
That is the way it was with St. Jerome too when he translated the Bible. Everybody was his master. He was the only one who was totally incompetent. And people who were not worthy to clean his shoes criticized the good man’s work.13 It takes a great deal of patience to do a good thing publicly, for the world always wants to be Master Know-it-all.14 It must always be putting the bit under the horse’s tail,15 criticizing everything but doing nothing itself. That is its nature; it cannot get away from it.

Later on in the letter He really starts to fume. This is where some of your sentences came from.

But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas.21 We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.
I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets;
they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy
Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to
their level, I can use their own dialectics22 and philosophy better
than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of
them understands their Aristotle.23 If there is a single one among them
all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in
Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat.24 I am not saying too much, for I have been
trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well
aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I
can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as
though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this
morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard
what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with
their science, teaching me what I outgrew25 twenty years ago, that to
all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I
have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”26
Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these
asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying27 about
the word sola than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that
he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall
stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have
them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should
say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them
who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt28
and Doctor Snotty-Nose,29 and their likes—and who set themselves
against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as
St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understand
understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already
well known anyway by his ears.30

Although Luther did not really have to explain himself, he decides to anyway later in the letter:

To you and to our people, however, I shall show why I chose to use the word sola—though in Romans 3[:28] it was not sola, but solum or tantum that I used,31 so sharply do the asses look at my text! Nevertheless I have used sola fide elsewhere,32 and I want both: solum and sola. I have constantly tried, in translating, to produce a pure and clear German, and it has often happened that for two or three or four weeks we have searched and inquired for a single word and sometimes not found it even then. In translating Job,33 Master Philip,34 Aurogallus,35 and I labored so, that sometimes we scarcely handled three lines in four days. Now that it is translated and finished, everybody can read and criticize it. One now runs his eyes over three or four pages and does not stumble once—without realizing what boulders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as over a smoothly-planed board. We had to sweat and toil there before we got those boulders and clods out of the way, so that one could go along so nicely. The plowing goes well when the field is cleared.36 But rooting out the woods and stumps, and getting the field ready—this is a job nobody wants. There is no such thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God himself can earn no thanks, with the sun, indeed with heaven and earth, or with his own Son’s death. It simply is and remains world, in the devil’s name, because it just will not be anything else.
Here, in Romans 3[:28], I knew very well that the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate.37 At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein)38 along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; “No, really I have now nicht money, but allein grain”; “I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.
In all these phrases, this is the German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a complete, clear German expression.

Finally later on the typical Luther mentions what really matters to him, the gospel. After all the reason why his critics were squabbling peevishly over a word is that they hated the grace of God that Luther offered to sinners. They wanted faith plus works, not free grace apart from works, like the Apostle Paul argues. There opposition of this word, in Luther’s view was not about words but about their opposition to Paul and Christ. So He argues against this anti-gospel stance as he always did. This was the heart of the reformation and Luther was its leader:

Tell me, further: What is the work by which we lay hold of Christ’s death and resurrection? It cannot be any external work, but only the eternal faith that is in the heart. Faith alone, indeed, all alone, without any works, lays hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached by the gospel. Why then this raging and raving, this making of heretics and burning them at the stake, when the matter itself at its very core is so clear and proves that faith alone lays hold of Christ’s death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection  [alone] are our life and our righteousness? Since, then, the fact itself is so obvious—that faith alone conveys, grasps, and imparts this life and righteousness—why should we not also say so? It is no heresy that faith alone lays hold on Christ, and gives life; and yet it must be heresy, if anyone mentions it. Are they not mad, foolish, and nonsensical? They admit that the thing is right, but brand the saying of it as wrong, though nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time.
Moreover I am not the only one, or even the first, to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others. And if a man is going to read St. Paul and understand him, he will have to say the same thing; he can say nothing else. Paul’s words are too strong; they admit of no works, none at all. Now if it is not a work, then it must be faith alone. What a fine, constructive, and inoffensive doctrine that would be, if people were taught that they could be saved by works, as well as faith! That would be as much as to say that it is not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sins, but that our works too have something to do with it. That would be a fine honor honoring of Christ’s death, to say that it is helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can do too—so that we are his equal in strength and goodness! This is the very devil; he can never quit abusing the blood of Christ.
The matter itself in its very core, then, demands that we say, “Faith
alone justifies.” And the nature of our German language also teaches us
to express it that way. I have in addition the precedent of the holy
fathers. And the danger of the people also compels it, so that they may
not continue to hang upon works and wander away from faith and lose
Christ, especially in these days, for they have been accustomed to
works so long they have to be torn away from them by force. For these
reasons it is not only right but also highly necessary to speak it out
as plainly and fully as possible, “Faith alone saves, without works.” I
am only sorry that I did not also add the words alle and aller, and
say, “without any works of any laws,” so that it would have been
expressed with perfect clarity. Therefore it will stay in my New
Testament, and though all the papal asses go stark raving mad they
shall not take it from me. (Luther’s Works, Volume 35, Page 182 - 198)


Can there be free will in heaven? The most common explanation I heard from Christians for the theodicy is that suffering is caused inevitably by the free will of humans. The argument is essentially that a world without suffering is impossible when you allow free will, as you can't prevent humans from causing harm to each other.

In heaven, there is supposed to be no suffering at all. How can that notion be reconciled with the free will argument? Do the humans in heaven have no free will, and are therefore unable to cause harm to each other? Or is it possible to create a world without suffering even when granting free will to the humans living in it?

Once we attain heaven, we will be given a new nature, purged of our old sinful nature.

2 Peter 1:4 (NIV)

  Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Once we escape this corruption, we will gain the sinless state of Jesus.

1 John 3:5-6 (NIV)

  5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him

2 Corinthians 3:18 (NASB)

  But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Now, while Jesus was free from sin, he also had free will:

John 10:17-18 (NIV)

  17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

So, there will be no sin in heaven.  This isn't because we don't have free will, but rather because we simply won't sin.  It won't be in our nature.  Just like now, it's not in our nature to fly.  So then, it won't be in our nature to sin.

However, there will be freedom in heaven:

2 Corinthians 3:17 (NASB)

  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Clearly, there is freedom in the Lord.  We don't loose our freedom simply because we're in heaven.

One final note is a simple call to logic:  How can heaven be paradise if we lose our freedom and free will?

One way to think about this is a world where sin isn't an option.  Partially because it's not in our nature and partially because it's not available to us.  Imagine, for example, life in the Garden of Eden, but without the snake.

There is no reason to sin.  There is no need to sin.  There is no desire to sin.  Yet there is complete free will.

(Note that I give this as a simple way to reconcile this in our minds, not as an actual answer.  Because in truth, free will allows for sin.  But, in heaven there will not be any sin--per my answer above.)


Has there been a paradigm shift in the `image' of devil? I am intrigued by this conversation between God and Devil in the Book of Job:

"One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan  also came with them.  The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

If Job was a historical person and the conversation between God and Devil is the verbatim reproduction of what really happened, I wish to believe that they were not such sworn enemies as we have been trained to believe.  I prefer to believe that heaven is the place where the faithful who choose to live for ever with God go, and hell on the other hand, is that state of continued existence which the people who consciously choose to ignore God are assigned to be in. The very fact that those who choose the 'adversary' above God are deprived of God's presence, itself becomes their agony  after death.
My question is whether there has been a continuous degradation to the 'image' of devil through the history of Church ?

Yes, there has been an evolution in thinking about the nature of the devil. Jeffrey B. Russell says, in The Prince of Darkness, page 37, that in Job, Satan is already a personality with the function of accusing, opposing, and harming human beings. He is not yet the principle of evil, for he is still one of the heavenly court and does nothing without God's consent and command. Here, Satan works as the shadow, the dark side of God, the destructive power wielded by God only reluctantly.  It is Satan himself who as mal'ak goes down to the earth and torments Job. In the somewhat later, apocryphal Book of Jubilees the evil mal'ak has become Mastema, prince of evil spirits and virtually independent of the Lord.  He tempts, accuses, destroys and punishes humans, taking onto himself all the evil characteristics Russell says were once ascribed to God.

Many modern Christians see Lucifer as a second name for Satan, and Russell says (page 43) the earliest Christian text making the equation of Lucifer with Satan is Against Marcion (2.10), by Tertullian. On page 63, Russell says it was Justin who established the connection between the Devil and the serpent of Eden, accepted by Christians forever after.

Russell explains that in the early Middle Ages, the monastic tendency to emphasise the Devil's power was balanced by the opposite tendency of folklore and legend to make Satan seem ridiculous and impotent.  This was a natural psychological reaction against the terrors of the monastic view.  The more threatening Satan's power, the more comedy was needed to tame him and relieve the threat. Giving the devil an absurd name was a popular antidote to the terror he struck. A host of popular nicknames followed through time, including Old Horny, Old Hairy, Black Bogey, Lusty Dick, Dickon, or Dickens, Gentleman Jack, the Good Fellow, Old Nick, and Old Scratch, with comparable names in other languages. The pagan god Pan was feared for his association with the wilderness and for his sexuality, so Pan's horns, hooves, shaggy fur, and outsized phallus became part of the Christian image of Satan. Even today, as we think of Satan's evil powers, we can also think of his horns and hooves.

The Reformation did not introduce a sudden change in the belief in the Devil.  To Luther, the devil was a real, living power, a concrete personality, and he used to characterise him as the good Lord's hangman, and the instrument of his anger and punishment. He believed God needs the Devil for a servant and utilises his malignity for the procreation of the good.

Martin Luther saw no place for comedy in the understanding of Satan. Russell says Luther came to the conclusion that the Devil, against his will, always does God's work.  All evils come from both the Devil and God, but the Devil wills the evil in them and God wills the good that comes out of them.  “God incites the Devil to evil, but he does not do evil himself.”

The Catholic catechism (2851) takes a somewhat different view than Martin Luther, saying that Satan, the Evil One, is the personification of evil, and opposes God. We can compare this to Satan's role in the Book of Job, where he talks to God about ways of testing Job to prove whether Job was really as righteous as he believed himself to be.


Saying the concluding prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours One of the most confusing bits of the Liturgy of the Hours is the concluding prayer for the offices. There are lots of bits in different brackets, and the "long ending" (through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns...") is never included in the text. Can anyone clarify which bit is said at which offices? Does it depend on whether you are reciting it in common or alone?

For example, today's concluding prayer at Lauds (Thursdays in Advent):

  Show forth your power, Lord, and comeCome in your great strength and help us.Be merciful and forgiving,and hasten the salvation which only our sins delay.(We make our prayer) through our Lord.(Through Christ our Lord.)

In the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, there are no particular norms (rules) for which ending or formula you may use to conclude the Prayer of the Day with.

That said one is free to use the concluding formula of one's choice. The concluding prayer has several options to end the prayer and although the formula "through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns..." is not formally mentioned as an alternative ending, in your edition, this traditional form may still be employed. I personally use the long formula when I pray the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours.

Thus there are four ways to conclude the Prayer of the Day. Whoever recites the final prayer in a congregation has the privilege of using his choice of ending,  whether a priest, deacon or lay person.

Here are the norms for the Concluding  Prayer:

  Concluding Prayer

  The concluding prayer at the end marks the completion of an entire hour. In a celebration in public and with a congregation, it belongs by tradition to a priest or deacon to say this prayer.
  In the office of readings, this prayer is as a rule the prayer proper to the day. At night prayer, the prayer is always the prayer given in the psalter for that hour.
  The concluding prayer at morning prayer and evening prayer is taken from the proper on Sundays, on the weekdays of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, and on solemnities, feasts, and memorials. On weekdays in Ordinary Time the prayer is the one given in the four-week psalter to express the character of these two hours.
  The concluding prayer at daytime prayer is taken from the proper on Sundays, on the weekdays of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, and on solemnities and feasts. On other days the prayers are those that express the character of the particular hour. These are given in the four-week psalter.


Why do Catholic laity cross themselves three times before the Gospel is read? Why does the laity (and sometimes the priest) cross themselves 3 time before the Gospel is read?

Like holding hands during the Lord's Prayer, and unlike bowing at the mention of the Incarnation during the Creed, it's not something that is called out in any of the missals or Mass cards I've ever seen in the pews, but it seems to be a pretty common practice; at least in my diocese.

Before the Gospel is read, a Catholic makes signs of the cross, with the thumb, on his or her

forehead,
mouth, and
heart,

which represents that the Catholic must

understand the Gospel,
proclaim it, and
"take it to heart," i.e., put it into practice, with charity.

Dom Prosper Guéranger's Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Holy Mass (hardcover ed. p. 32-33) says:

  [While the priest] makes the sign of the Cross upon the Book, and at the place where begins the text of the Gospel…[, the priest and the faithful] at the same time, signs himself on the forehead, the lips, and the breast, asking, in virtue of the Cross, which is the source of all grace, that he may always have the Gospel in his heart, and on his lips, and that he may never be ashamed of it.

(I've edited what Dom Guéranger said to apply also to the faithful, not just the deacon. Dom Guéranger is describing a Solemn High Mass, where a priest, deacon who sings the Gospel, and sub-deacon, along with altar servers, assist. The deacon in such Masses does the three signs of the cross to himself just as the faithful do to themselves in all types of Masses, High or Low, before the Gospel. The reason for the three signs of the cross is the same.)


Why is “faith” omitted as a doctrinal consideration in TULIP (five point) Calvinism? Throughout the Bible “faith” coupled with God’s “grace” is essential for salvation.  The I in TULIP stands for irresistible “grace”, what role does “faith” hold in Calvinism and why is it isolated from "grace"?
Here are some scriptures with "faith" coupled with "grace/love":

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love
Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Ephesians 6:23 Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Romans 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace…
Romans 5:2 …we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God
Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us…according to the proportion of faith
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God
1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus
Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another

The important thing to remember is that each of the items in TULIP was a response to the (Arminian) Remonstrants own five point rejection of Calvinism. Thus the simple reason why faith is omitted is because the Remonstrants weren't critiquing the place of faith, per se, but the place of grace in salvation. Because TULIP is a response to a critique, the debate was framed by the Remonstrants, not the "Calvinists."

Reformed theology has always closely affirmed the "five solas," including sola fide (solely by faith). Faith is assumed an absolutely essential part of Reformed belief. For example, Westminster Confession of Faith 14.1:

  The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

As you can see, and this is worked throughout the Westminster Standards, faith is seen as a part of God's grace. However, grace is obviously more than just faith -- it is also God's grace that "the rain falls on the just and the unjust," for example (Mt. 5.45). But, directly to your question regarding TULIP, the issue is simply that neither Calvin nor the later Reformed theologians were the ones to frame the five point debate, they were only responding, and thus the fact that faith isn't in TULIP only speaks to a particular Reformed-"Arminian" controversy and not Reformed belief in general.


How did the four living creatures become associated with the Gospel writers? The visions of Ezekiel recorded in Ezekiel 1 and that of John in Revelation 4:7 include four living creatures (ζῷα) that stand in the presence of the throne of God. In both visions these heavenly creatures appear like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle, though their detailed descriptions vary.

Later, these four creatures – an angelic ox, lion, man, and eagle – became associated with the traditionally held writers of the four Gospels of Jesus Christ, for example by Rabanus Maurus Magnentius and in the Book of Kells, both c. AD 800, with ample other examples in Christian art even as late as the modern age.

When and how did these four heavenly creatures become symbolic representations within Christianity of the persons of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

This connection was made by fathers as early as Irenaeus (d. 202).  Here's a table showing the views of several fathers whose writings we have on this subject:

                      Lion       Ox        Man          Eagle
Irenaeus (d. 202)     John       Luke      Matthew      Mark
Victorinus (d. 303)   Mark       Luke      Matthew      John
Jerome (d. 420)       Mark       Luke      Matthew      John
Augustine (d. 430)    Matthew    Luke      Mark         John

A number of church fathers saw a lot of symbolism in Scripture, particularly in Revelation.  Irenaeus first connects the four creatures to aspects of Christ's life and ministry:

  For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)

He then connects each animal, and its christological association, to the emphases of the gospel writers:

Lion – John ("John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father")
Ox – Luke ("that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character")
Man – Matthew ("Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man")
Eagle – Mark ("Mark [...] commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men")

Subsequent fathers took similar approaches, but often came to different conclusions regarding the specific associations.  For example, Victorinus, and Jerome following him, saw the ox and the man similarly, but swapped the other two:

  The living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. [...] Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. (Commentary on the Apocalypse)

Augustine's views are found in his Harmony of the Gospels, where he disagrees with these interpretations, particularly that of Irenaeus:

  It also appears to me, that of the various parties who have interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as significant of the four evangelists, those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John, have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those who have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John.


Could there have been a different translation for Matthew 14:28? (Catholic perspective) At Matthew 14:25-28 we read:

  And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea.   But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.

I like to believe that the saying  of Peter, "if it is you," is a weak translation of the original text. Only after getting the confirmation that he was looking at Jesus, and not a ghost, does Peter place his request. So there is no point in his using the 'if' word.

I wish to know if there are other forms in which the original text could have been translated into, say, "now that it is you." What do the Catholic interpretations say on such a perspective?

This is not a Catholic-specific question; however, the translation (which appears in the ESV) accurately represents the Greek: εἰ σὺ εἶ (“if it is you”). (See the corresponding entry in the Liddell & Scott dictionary.)

That the Catholic Church basically accepts this interpretation is confirmed by looking at the Latin Vulgate (the translation favored by most Catholics for centuries): si tu es.

Note that in the Greek, the word “you” is redundant (εἶ—the one with the circumflex accent—by itself already means “you are” or “it is you”). Thus, Peter here is emphasizing the “you”: that is, “if it is you (and not someone else)….”


What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself? When talking about homosexuality discussions often seem to get a little fuzzy because the word "homosexuality" can take on a lot of different meanings. Here are a few:

The attraction
Acting on the attraction (including non-physical actions, such as lust)
A lifestyle

As far as I know, it is a widespread belief in Western Christianity that (2) and (3) are classified as a type of sexual immorality, and are therefore sinful. However, I have occasionally encountered Christians from a more fundamentalist background who not only consider (2) and (3) to be sinful, but also say that (1) is sinful.

For those who consider (1) to be sinful, what is the Biblical basis for thinking so? And does this mean that vows of celibacy are seen as more of a band-aid fix than a complete solution (because they would only prevent (2) and (3), not (1))?

Typically, proponents of this view would say something like the attraction is an indication of sin that is already present. They do not believe the attraction is inherent within that person, but rather is the effect of other sins.

To support this they would often quote Romans 1.

  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  ...

  21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ...

  24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ...

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

  28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. ... 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

When challenged that same sex attraction is an issue of psychology, not theology, they would say that these verses clearly state the root of this psychological problem. It starts as a problem within their heart. They hate the laws of God and some even hate God Himself. They desired wickedness more than God's righteousness, so God gave them over to their wickedness. Not only would they like to engage in homosexual acts, but they now have a mind that is intrinsically attracted to that sin. Conversely, opposite sex attraction is blessed and holy and is properly sought within marriage. No such thing exists for homosexuality.

Most taking this view would likely not call it a sin, per se, but it is the fruit of sin that has been prevalent since the beginning. As an imperfect analogy, many would agree that theft is a sin, but some would also say that using that stolen item is continued theft.

A decent source on the topic that makes the same argument

I'm still looking for other corroborating sources, but they are hard to come by. It is not a popular opinion and many who do hold it are usually pretty hateful about it.

St. Thomas Aquinas has an illuminating view on Romans 1:24

  Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart [because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25)], unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves

Cap. 1 l. 7 discusses the causality of homosexuality:

  139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).

  The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

  To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.

  Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

  (translation from: Larcher, Fabian R., trans. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, with parallel Latin and the Greek text of the epistle. Lander, Wyo.: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012. pp. 47-8)

In other words: He, the Author of nature, does not put same-sex attraction in human nature.

Aquinas is saying that "one's first sin" "is a cause of the next". Relative to this topic, the homosexuals' personal sins (idolatry, spite for God, etc.) made them even greater sinners (not just doers of homosexual acts, but those who long for that evil).


Does Jesus's name lose authority in other languages? (Catholic) The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language
  originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a
  rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua
  or Jeshua. In a religious context, the name refers to Jesus, the
  central figure of Christianity.

Luke 1:31

  You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him
  Jesus.

The angel actually said,

  you are to call him Yeshua.

What is the Catholic explanation for translating Jesus's name? Jesus's name should be original because that's what the angel said his name is.

In my native language, we don't say "Juraj Krik". Do you know who is Juraj Krik? No! It's George Bush. Nobody actually knows him under the translated name either. Everyone knows him under his English name.

Why is it ok to translate Jesus's name? Doesn't the translation diminish the authenticity or even the authority of his name? Or what really matter is the person's individual attitude towards the name? Well, from the history we can see that it also matters when it comes to how we use the form, not just the content.  We can also see that during exorcisms, I think they mostly use the Latin translation.

Note: Adam & Eve stayed the same almost in all languages. So if Jesus is new Adam, his name should be the same in all languages too.

On June 29, 2008, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the presidents of all conferences of bishops, prohibiting use of the term Yahweh in the liturgy, particularly in hymns and Psalm translations. The same reasons should also apply to Yeshua the Hebrew name of Jesus. Here is an excerpt from that Letter to the Bishops Conferences on The Name of God:

  When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the crucifixion, writes that
  “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is
  above every name” (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any name other than
  “Lord,” for he continues by saying, “and every tongue confess that
  Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11; cf. Is 42:8: “I am the Lord; that is
  my name.”) The attribution of this title to the risen Christ
  corresponds exactly to the proclamation of his divinity. The title in
  fact becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah
  of the Christian faith, even though it is not in fact one of the
  titles used for the Messiah of Israel. In the strictly theological
  sense, this title is found, for example, already in the first
  canonical Gospel (cf. Mt 1:20: “The angel of the Lord appeared to
  Joseph in a dream.”) One sees it as a rule in Old Testament citations
  in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:20): “The sun shall be turned into
  darkness. . . before the day of the Lord comes” (Joel 3:4); 1 Peter
  1:25: “The word of the Lord abides for ever” (Is 40:8). However, in
  the properly Christological sense, apart from the text cited of
  Philippians 2:9-11, one can remember Romans 10:9 (“If you confess with
  your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised
  him from the dead, you will be saved”), 1 Corinthians 2:8 (“they would
  not have crucified the Lord of glory”), 1 Corinthians 12:3 (“No one
  can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit”) and the frequent
  formula concerning the Christian who lives “in the Lord” (Rom 16:2; 1
  Cor 7:22, 1 Thes 3:8; etc).

Michael Marlowe has written an excellent article worth reding on the issue of translating the names of God. The last paragraph of it should succinctly summarize his view.

  Other “Sacred Name” cults put great emphasis on the use of the
  tetragrammaton, and also upon the supposed Hebrew form of the name of
  Jesus, for reasons that are not always clear. Some seem to believe
  that particular Hebrew pronunciations of the names for God and Christ
  are a mark of the true Church, and that there is even something wrong
  with using the Graecized and Anglicized form “Jesus” instead of
  “Yeshua,” or “Jehoshua,” “Yahshua,” or whatever pronunciation is being
  put forth as most authentic. The New Testament writers obviously cared
  nothing for all that. It stems from the dilettantish interest in
  Hebrew that one often finds among modern Pentecostals, Adventists, and
  other unorthodox people, who fancy that they are “restoring” something
  essential to true Christianity by using Hebrew names and words which
  the writers of the New Testament did not feel any need to use. These
  Hebrew words are then invested with sectarian significance. We sense
  that their desire to use a different name for God is connected with a
  tendency to reject the concept of God associated with historic
  Christian orthodoxy. Their Yahweh is not our Lord, their Yeshua is not
  our Jesus, their Messiah is not our Christ. Probably an inordinate
  interest in using the tetragrammaton also involves the same
  superstitious thinking that led some people in ancient times to use it
  as a magical word, with the idea that the power of the Deity can be
  summoned by the correct intonation of his name. This does not honor
  God, it spurns the custom of the apostles, and it would probably not
  have been tolerated by them.

  The use of “the Lord” to represent the tetragrammaton will no doubt
  continue to be normal in English Bible versions. The example of the
  apostles, confirmed by two millennia of tradition, is not to be set
  aside lightly. The interests of scholars who wish to call attention to
  the use of the Name are adequately served by the use of the capital
  letters which indicate where the tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew
  text.

After having a thorough study we should learn that using the exact original names of God should not matter to us. The Hebrew Roots movement among Churches is very helpful which remind us of the Jewish roots of Christian religion, however we should be careful not to fall in the trap of sacred name cults. Overemphasizing on certain names of God would lead to similar heresies like "Seventh Day Adventists" who overemphasize certain day of God. May be in the modern world under globalization many non-English speakers easily pronounce George Bush, but it might not have been same in old times. Names when translated to other languages get changed due to linguistic reasons. Here is a similar question addressing-  Why do English translations sometimes, but not always, transform names instead of just transliterating them?


God said in the Bible: ”I am who am!” What does that expression mean? ”I am who am!”

What does this expression mean?

God expressed Himself like so in the Bible. But what I want to know is what does it mean? What is its intrinsic meaning?

God said :

I am that I am. [Exodus 3:14, KJV.]
I am that which I am. [Exodus 3:14, Young's Literal.]

'I am' expresses a personal existence, an individual being.
'That I am' or 'that which I am' expresses a form of being, a mode of existence.
Elsewhere, God reveals that he is eternal, he is the Creator of all things :

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. [Isaiah 40:28, KJV.]

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, states 'God is Spirit' (John 4:24, KJV).
The mode of God's existence is eternal spirit.
As such, he is known by faith, not by human sight or by scientific knowledge.


In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items? In Mark 10:25, Jesus states...

  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25 NIV)

After hearing his Disciples ask in light of this who could possibly be saved

  Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27 NIV)

My question is, how can any Christian in good conscience purchase any luxurious good or service that doesn't benefit anyone else besides themselves?

Flat screens, cars, riding lawn mowers, all these things are luxuries for daily living, but let's face it, wouldn't God rather have us take that money and buy a pallet of food for the local food pantry?

Let's go back and re-read the incident that prompted Jesus' teaching:

  And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.—Mark 10:17-22 (ESV)

Notice that:

Jesus says "No one is good except God alone."  While He was apparently taking advantage of the honoring address of the man, the point was important to the overall story.  Nobody is perfect in goodness except God.  The whole purpose of Jesus dying on the Cross is to fix that problem.
Jesus mentions all but one of the commandments related to our horizontal relationships.  Jesus knew beforehand the problem the rich man faced: "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor."
The man lacked one thing: freedom from the bondage of possessions.  Jesus answered his question, but the man would not make himself free.  We know from verse 22, that the reason the man did not follow Jesus was because he could not give up his stuff.  The slavery to the material world was too great an obstacle for him.

Jesus teaching based on the incident was less about anti-materialism and more about the worldly bondage that blocks people from following Him.  It is the wealth of the rich that tends to stand in their way, but not everyone is bound by the same rope.  In fact, we have an indication that Jesus' disciples did not have the same bondage to wealth as the rich man:

  Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”—Mark 10:28-31 (ESV)

Jesus warned them about pride, which seems prescient:

  And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”—Mark 10:35-37 (ESV)

Not only were James and John trying to get a leg up on the other disciples, Jesus also had to deal with the other ten's misplaced jealousy.  Each of us have our own unique set of spiritual struggles and it doesn't pay to feel superior to those whose struggles we don't share.

One of the traps we fall into is overgeneralizing.  Yes, Jesus' diagnosis for this man was to sell everything in order to take up his cross and follow Him.  (See Mark 8:34-38.)  But Jesus had another diagnosis for the one whose hand causes them to sin: cut it off!  Get rid of the foot or eye that erects a barrier between you and the Kingdom of God.  (See Mark 9:42-50.)  But not all people in the Kingdom have one hand, one foot, and one eye.  Not all of the people in the Kingdom have sold and given everything.  That's not how God made us.

All of us must deny ourselves something.  This text suggests that the something we must give up is the something that we wish most desperately to retain.  For you, it might be a love of luxury.  For me, it is almost certainly comfort and intellectual pride.  I have placed those things from time to time as gods to be worshiped.  They appear more trustworthy than Jesus more often than I care to admit.  So I can't follow Jesus if I am too busy following comfort and knowledge that puffs up.  Jesus says a man can not follow two masters (see Matthew 6:19-24) and therefore I'm only following Him when I give up those idols.

Summary

Few of us take seriously Jesus' command that the author of Hebrews summarized: "Let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely". (Hebrews 12:1 ESV)  But we need to be honest with ourselves about what causes us to sin.  If it is wealth, by all means, give it away.


What is the ordering of events in Nahum and Jonah? I was reading the book of Nahum and it was speaking about Nineveh.  Is the book of Nahum foretelling the destruction of Nineveh, for which the people of Nineveh averted by repenting of their sins, or is Nahum talking about an event that happened after Jonah's time?

Typically, Jonah is dated to the period of Jeroboam, i.e 780 - 750s BC, whereas Nahum is dated to either shortly before (615BC) or after (612BC) the fall of Assyria (and its capital, Nineveh). Thus, Nahum is at least 150 years after Jonah.

So, to answer the question directly, No - Nahum is not the promised vengeance of God against Nineveh promised by God in Jonah.  If it were, then God is not "slow to anger, but abounding in compassion," as Jonah himself points out in chapter 4, nor is the "incomplete ending" of Jonah to any effect.

The key date that differentiates these works, however, is 722BC, when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, leaving only the last two remaining tribes of Israel - Judah and Benjamin. Jonah presumes a full, diverse Israel, whereas Nahum is only addressing the remaining "Israel" in the sense that most people think of Israel today.  The fuller complement of Israel would have been more steeped in idolatry and the "sins" people think of today.

When Jonah goes to Nineveh to preach repentance, the amazing thing is that Nineveh does repent, much to Jonah's annoyance.  That generation is completely spared the wrath of God and lives, so to speak, happily ever after.

It isn't for another 150 years (think the time between now and the American Civil War)  that Nahum is writing.  He is fortelling the doom of Nineveh in order to encourage (Southern) Israel from prematurely capitulating to Assyria.  The later parts of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles tells the stories of Hezekiah and Josiah, set in this time period, and the constant question is whether Israel should rely on God, or trust in some bigger foreign power like Egypt or Assyria, the two big players in the region.  Imagine, for example, you're Belgium just before WWII.  Do you rely on God or make peace with either Germany or France, and you're beginning to get the picture.

As it happens, Egypt itself had fallen shortly before Nahum, and Assyria does fall very shortly after (or if you don't believe in prophecy, before) the writing, so in any case, its good advice.

Unfortunately for Judah, however, Babylon is the instrument of Assyria's departure from the scene, and within only about 40 more years (587 / 586 BC) they will invade Judah itself, thus destroying the last vestige of the kingdom, and sending all the peoples into exile.


Which was written first Noah’s Flood or the Gilgamesh Epic? I am finding conflicting information on the web...

Was it Book of Genesis or the Gilgamesh Epic that was written first?

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written before Genesis was written down but after the events of Genesis took place, and both were after the event of concern, the Flood of Noah (per your tag), occurred.

At least parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh were written by ~2100 BC, with the first complete version, the Akkadian version, dating from around 1300-1000 BC. See Wikipedia’s description of the history of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Genesis, along with the rest of the Pentateuch, in the timeframe of 1445-1405 BC.
Related, the Sumerian flood story, the Atrahasis, dates to 1646–1626 BC.

Since you tagged the flood of Noah, I will say that the most important thing in discussing the account of Noah’s flood, however, is not comparing when the Bible was written with when these epics were written. The important thing is that all of these flood stories came after the actual event happened. Noah’s flood occurred around ~2300-2400 BC. See calculations from Answers in Genesis, Creation.com, and Bible Archeology (these are all probably YEC). It is well expected that many stories and myths, etc. would be written about this monumental, historical event as it was passed down orally before it was written down. So, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and other flood stories can only serve to support (very indirectly) the account given in Scripture that God sent a worldwide flood to destroy the Earth as judgment.

You can also see the question Are other flood legends relevant to Christians? for more discussion.


According to churches which teach Believer's Baptism, what are the consequences of not being baptized with water? Are there any direct consequences to not getting baptized? Whether this person doesn't think it's important, or just doesn't want to, or wants to but just doesn't get around to it, did Jesus or his disciples ever give an indication that if you don't get baptized then X could happen to you or you'll never achieve X? I have some friends that are believers and love the Lord, but they just don't see baptism as an urgent thing--more of cultural thing, like baby dedications or whatnot.

I feel like a heretic for agreeing, but I honestly don't see how water baptism has any power in itself, though there's certainly power in publicly proclaiming your new faith (which my friends that forego water baptism have all done). Then again, Jesus was baptized and commanded his apostles to do so. So I am conflicted with what makes sense to me and what was practiced by the early church.

FYI: I was baptized as an adult believer, but mostly because it "felt" like the right thing to do because I was told it was the right thing to do. Now having read the bible it feels less and less important. The only answer I see again and again is "The early church did it" but I don't see any consequences for not doing it.

Edit: For the purpose of clarity, the Perspective sought is those who hold the doctrine of Believer's baptism as per Baptist and related denominations.

I agree that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change and isn't what saves you, yet even so, it is important to be baptised for three excellent reasons:

It is a rite of initiation into the Christian community - Although our confession before God (of our faith in Christ and his Lordship over us) is of primary importance, Public confession of our faith is important in terms of our relationship to the Christian community (the church) and our witness to non-Christians.  Another common community rite that we regard as good and useful is a wedding ceremony - it isn't what makes a marriage, but it's a good way for the community to gather, recognise, and - through their witness of sacred vows - solemnize a marriage - baptism is analagous to this. A refusal to be baptised implies an unwillingness to Confess Christ before men (cf. Matthew 10:32-35, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13).
In Baptism, though it is symbolic, we identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.  If we are unwilling to do this through fear of man or misunderstanding, such unwillingness testifies against a genuine identifaction with Christ as our Saviour and Lord. A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to identify with Christ and his work on the cross (cf. Romans 6:3-5).
While it may not be necessary for us to receive salvation, Baptism is a command of Jesus and his Apostles (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:38) - to ignore this command, even if the reason seems unnecessary to us, is an act of unbelief that may be more consequential than we realise - you are effectively saying you know better than Jesus and the Apostles about how you should live as a 'Christian' - dangerous stuff!  A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to trust Jesus as Lord (cf. Romans 11:17-22, Hebrews 3&4, 2 Kings 5:1-14).