How is Sabbath a metaphor of Jesus Christ? Matthew 11:28 (NIV) “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
  and I will give you rest.

  Matthew 12:8 (NIV) For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

From these verses, some preachers say that Jesus Christ is now our Sabbath spiritually and we no longer have to observe the Sabbath Day, the day is no longer important.

How exactly is this explained?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil(Matt 5:17, KJV)."

The fulfillment Jesus talks about is His perfection in lieu of our sin. We cannot live by the Law to the letter because we are sinners.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;(Romans 3:23, KJV)."

When Christ died on the cross, he offered His perfect life as a substitution for ours. When we die, we are seen as if we are Christ.

So do we need to honor the Sabbath? Yes! We honor the Sabbath not because we must in order to achieve salvation, but because we want to live by the example Christ set for us.


Question about Moses How old was Moses when his mother returned him to Pharaoh's daughter in Egypt? Please I will like to know more about it. How long was he weaned?

Moses was born 1526 B.C.  His mother was Jochebed, his father was Amram (Exodus 6:20; Numbers 26:59) and his sister was Miriam (Exodus 15:20-21).  Hebrews 11:23 confirms that Moses was hidden for three months by his parents.  After Pharaoh’s daughter discovers the baby Moses hidden in a basket by the place where she came to bathe, Miriam persuades her to allow her to find a nurse for the baby (Exodus 2:9). Miriam brings baby Moses back home so her mother can nurse him.  After a period of time, Moses had been weaned and was then handed over to Pharaoh’s daughter.  How long was that period of time?  The Bible does not say.  However, there are other sources of information that may give us a clue.

  In the ancient world, children were nursed for three or four years before being weaned. (Breast-feeding Practices in Ancient Israel,” 61–83; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 32; some of the key evidence comes from 2 Macc 7:27 and 1 Sam 1:23, as well as from the Egyptian “Instructions of Ani” (ANET, 420) (p.10)  Source: https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/exposition/exodus/exodus_2.pdf

The exact length of time it took before Moses was weaned is not important.  However, the article quoted above provides some interesting information on dates and the characters involved.


Jehovah's Witness officiating a non-denomination wedding ceremony I would like to ask my brother to officiate my wedding but he is a baptized Jehovah's Witness and my fiance and I are not. According to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, can he legally officiate our non-denominational ceremony without putting a strain on his faith?  If so, how?

Jehovah's Witnesses have not published any article specifically on officiating non-Witness weddings, but there has been an article discussing whether or not Witnesses should attend non-Witness weddings.

Watchtower: Questions from Readers (published in 2007)

The concluding paragraph summarizes the article well:

  After carefully weighing all the factors, some Christians may decide that it would not be improper to attend a non-Witness wedding as a quiet observer. But if a Christian reasons that by being present, he might be tempted to compromise godly principles, he may conclude that the risk outweighs the possible benefits. If he decides not to attend the wedding but to go as an invited guest to the festivities held thereafter, he should be determined to “do all things for God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) In making such decisions, “each one will carry his own load” of responsibility. (Galatians 6:5) Whatever you decide, therefore, remember that preserving a good conscience before Jehovah God is vital.

So in the context of deciding to officiate the wedding, it would also be a matter of conscience for the Witness. It would depend greatly on the spirituality of those in attendance, and what they may expect to see at the wedding and the following ceremony. If, for instance, people were getting drunk or dancing crudely at the ceremony, it would very likely violate the Witness' conscience. Jehovah's Witnesses also do not participate in interfaith activities.

Legally speaking, one of Jehovah's Witnesses would obviously be subject to the same laws as any other person officiating a wedding.

One caveat: if the Witness happens to be an elder in the congregation, they are specifically instructed to only officiate weddings that are between a man and woman who are both at least unbaptized publishers. - Source: my dad who is an elder.


Why did Jesus confront the official who had slapped Him in the presence of the High Priest? John 18:20-23 (NIV) reads:

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.  Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.
“If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

One would be curious to know as to why Jesus confronted the official, who is not recorded to have regretted his deed. Is there any official interpretation of the said passage from the side of Catholic Church?

The question asked by the official is rhetorical, because he wasn't really expecting Jesus to answer. It was a statement: "That's no way to speak to the High Priest!". You often hear parents ask questions like, "Is that any way to treat your sister?" or teachers, "Is that any way to behave?" It is a technique used by those in authority to give the impression they're not giving orders or exercising dominion over those in their charge.

The question having been asked, however, invited a response from Jesus. He took the opportunity to give his interrogators something to think about in regard to the legitimacy of their proceedings.

If the OP's intent was to challenge Jesus' behaviour as an example of not practicing what he preached, then I am prepared to expand this answer.

Conclusion

Jesus wasn't confronting the official, but simply took the opportunity provided by the official's question to move his interrogators to more carefully consider their actions. You know, to give their consciences a chance to ask, "Does this man really deserve to be treated this way?"

There really is no avenue of escape from guilt for those who participated in Jesus' trial. He gave them every opportunity to change their minds.


What does it meant that Jesus "breathed on them"? I always tried to visualize the moment when, after Resurrection, Jesus gave Holy Spirit to Apostles:

  So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
  Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on
  them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
  the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of
  any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23, NKJV)

Is the term 'to breath (to give Spirit)' or other to explain how can it be understood? Did Jesus just made a loud voice of a breathe faced towards Apostles? Do people of our times that live in the Spirit make that gestures? In the only moment I recall that gesture (or act of breathing so to speak) with purpose of blessing.

In Genesis we read:

  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7, NKJV)

but this can't be really easy to imagine.

These moments when 'spiritual world' crosses with human, common gestures are so special and make me wonder.

What means that “(Jesus) breathed on them” in John 20,22

  John 20:20-22  And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands
  and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath
  sent me, even so send I you.   And when he had said this, he breathed
  on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

This is the first instance where believers in Jesus receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Those who trusted in God in the Old Testament would occasionally receive the Holy Spirit to prophesy or some other specific task. However, the indwelling Spirit was intended for those who receive their new life in Christ.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jesus told his disciples that they would also receive a "baptism" of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 1:4-5  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them
  that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise
  of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.   For John truly
  baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
  many days hence.

This was an additional dispensation of the Holy Spirit that was prophesied by Joel and was to be a sign as well as a means of establishing the Kingdom.

  Acts 2:16-17  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out
  of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
  prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
  dream dreams:

The idea that the Holy Spirit was given in two steps is not accepted by everyone. However I think we can see that the Holy Spirit was given a second time by the laying on of hands of those who had already professed their faith and been baptized constitutes a second reception of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 8:14-17  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
  Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
  John:   Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
  might receive the Holy Ghost:   (For as yet he was fallen upon none of
  them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)   Then
  laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

As I understand the Bible, the second reception of the Holy Spirit was consistent with the immanency of the Kingdom of God. Since Israel was not even provoked by jealousy, and did not receive this kingdom offer, today we are left with just the indwelling Holy Spirit as proof of our new life in Jesus.

  2 Corinthians 1:21-22  Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ,
  and hath anointed us, is God;   Who hath also sealed us, and given the
  earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

When a faithful remnant of Israel does finally receive the kingdom, we shall once again see the reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands resume.


When and how was the doctrine of the one divine will established? Many (perhaps most) Trinitarian theologians says that the Father, Son, and Spirit each possess the one singular divine will. This is a stronger statement than saying they are "united in will", which could leave open the possibility that each person of the Trinity has its own will. (In the incarnation the Son took on a human nature including a human will, but that is out of scope for this question. Answers should not focus on the incarnation or Christology. This question is about the one divine will possessed by the Father, Son, and Spirit in eternity.)

When was this doctrine first expounded, and what arguments, whether Biblical or otherwise, were given to support it?

Another question, Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?, has some good information and quotes about this doctrine, but it does not ask about the earliest defences of it.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) in his Fourth Theological Oration gives an early defence for the doctrine of the one divine will. The context of this paragraph is John 6:38.

  Let them quote in the seventh place that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Him.  Well, if this had not been said by Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it.  For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Thy Will prevail.  For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will.  But since, as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, “not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and Thee; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will.”  For many such expressions are used in relation to this Community, and are expressed not positively but negatively; as, e.g., God giveth not the Spirit by measure, for as a matter of fact He does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does He measure It, for God is not measured by God; or again, Not my transgression nor my sin.  The words are not used because He has these things, but because He has them not.  And again, Not for our righteousness which we have done, for we have not done any.  And this meaning is evident also in the clauses which follow.  For what, says He, is the Will of My Father?  That everyone that believeth on the Son should be saved, and obtain the final Resurrection.  Now is this the Will of the Father, but not of the Son?  Or does He preach the Gospel, and receive men’s faith against His will?  Who could believe that?  Moreover, that passage, too, which says that the Word which is heard is not the Son’s but the Father’s has the same force.  For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong to one alone, however much I consider it, and I do not think any one else can.  If then you hold this opinion concerning the Will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks.


Did Martin Luther accept or reject the existence of Purgatory? Martin Luther rejected many dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. What was his belief concerning Purgatory? Did he accept it or reject it?

Luther's beliefs on purgatory evolved over time.  A quick search on the Internet will find people claiming he accepted purgatory, offering quotes to prove it, and others saying he rejected it, also offering quotes to prove it.  As such, a thorough investigation into his belief during different time periods is warranted.
95 Theses
Any investigation into what Luther believed about purgatory, must start at the beginning of the Reformation - Luther's composition of 95 Theses against corruption in the Catholic Church in 1517.   Among the 95 points, more than a dozen are about purgatory, including:

Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation. (#16)
Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love. (#18)
As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life. (#22)
They [the papacy] preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. (#27)
Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend. (#29)

Luther is disagreeing on some points about the nature of purgatory and certain is condemning claims that people can buy a quick pass through of purgatory for the dead, but he is not doubting its existence in any way.  It seems quite clear that he takes its existence for granted at that time.  Indeed, in his own Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, he said he was unsure of the exact nature of purgatory but affirmed "I am positive there is a purgatory."
Continued belief, but not as a matter of doctrine
In Defense and Explanation on All the Articles (1521), Luther wrote:

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory... in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

Here, Luther is saying it is a matter of personal judgment.  He, himself, believes in purgatory, but won't hold it against anyone who comes to a different conclusion.  Likewise in Against Latomus (1521), he argues for purgatory while admitting that it cannot be proven by scripture.
In a 1522 sermon for the Festival of Epiphany, Luther said the spirits of the dead do not seek help from the living and said one is not a heretic for denying purgatory since "The Scriptures know nothing of it."
Expressed doubts
In a letter to his friend Nicholas von Amsdorf later that year, Luther wrote that he was unsure what happened after death but felt that "with few exceptions all sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling," waiting to the resurrected at a later date. He further said that the existence of purgatory was uncertain and that he wasn't convinced that all those not in heaven or hell were in purgatory.
The 1522 version of Luther's Personal Prayer Book contain the petition "Have mercy upon all poor souls in purgatory," but the petition was removed in the 1524 edition.
Rejects the idea
In Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), explicitly stated for the first time that purgatory was a false teaching.  However, he did say there was no real harm in praying for the dead since scripture didn't speak against it.  He said those who wished to do so could say "Dear God, if this soul is in a condition possible for mercy, be thou gracious to it."
Two years later, in "Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled at Augsburg" Luther condemned the doctrine of purgatory and wrote that falsely claiming the ability to free souls from purgatory had brought great shame but "lots of money" for the church.  Also in 1530, he wrote Revocation of Purgatory, a tract denouncing the doctrine of purgatory.
From 1535-1545, Luther wrote and lectured extensively on Genesis.  These lectures were compiled and published shortly after his death in 1546.  In this work, he found several occasions to comment on the idea of purgatory.  For example, on chapter 4 he writes:

had we held Baptism and the holy Supper of our Lord in that esteem in which we ought to have held them, we should never have become monks. Nothing concerning purgatory, nothing concerning the sacrifice of the mass, nothing about those other like iniquities, would ever have been taught and handed down to us in the Church. But after the light of the Word had been put out by the wicked Popes, it was easy enough to thrust upon men all these abominations.

Thus calling the teaching of purgatory an "iniquity" taught by "wicked Popes".
Summary
When Luther wrote his 95 Theses in 1517, he firmly believed in purgatory.  By 1521, he wrote that belief in purgatory was a matter of personal choice, but said that he personally continued to believe in purgatory.  Beginning in 1522, he began to express doubts in the doctrine and removed a prayer for souls in purgatory from his prayer book in 1524.  In 1528, Luther explicitly rejected the idea of purgatory for the first time, a position he apparently held until his death.

Note: All information is available in primary sources, which can be found in the collected works of Luther, Luther's Works published in 55 volumes by Concodia from 1958-1973


Where do the writings of John place chronologically according to preterists? Under the preterist view that all of John’s writings we're completed prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, where would they be placed chronologically in the New Testament canon?

You will find exactly what you are looking for in Ed Stevens's paper "Introduction to the New Testament Canon" - for the Preterist Bible Project, written April 2011.  He covers the "why" of the Preterists position as opposed to the theory of canon formation held by Roman Catholic as well as some Protestants, even evangelical theologians who all hold creeds like the Nicene and the Apostle's creed as legitimate and authoritative.  But the Preterists only believe the apostles of the first century to be authoritative (and thus became the basis of the NT canon), and the later generations merely recognize the already established books in the canon.

Secondly, the Preterists also believe all NT books to have been written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, including all of Apostle's John's writings.  The paper I referenced above includes one dating scheme of all NT books.  Because most Christian scholars have dated the book of Revelation to mid AD 90, Preterists became well known for their extremely early dating of Revelation, which heavily affects their interpretation of the prophecies within the book of Revelation.  See this short 1985 book by Arthur Ogden "An Introduction to the Book of Revelation" as an example of how Preterists defend the pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation including extensive argument and historical background to support it.

Here's Ed Steven's dating scheme of all NT books:

  1 Thessalonians (AD 52)
  2 Thessalonians (AD 52)
  Galatians (AD 52-53)
  1 Corinthians (AD 57)
  2 Corinthians (AD 57)
  Romans (AD 58)
  Matthew (pre-AD 58)
  Mark (pre-AD 58)
  Luke (AD 58-61)
  Acts (AD 58-61)
  John (AD 60-62)
  1, 2, 3 John (AD 61-62)
  James (AD 62)
  Revelation (AD 62-63)
  Ephesians (AD 63)
  Colossians (AD 63)
  Philemon (AD 63)
  Philippians (AD 63)
  Hebrews (AD 63)
  1 Timothy (AD 63)
  Titus (AD 63)
  1 Peter (AD 63-64)
  2 Timothy (AD 64)
  Jude (AD 64-65)
  2 Peter (AD 64-65)


Why are only some predestined? Specifically with respect to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)...

Chapter 3, paragraph 3 and 4, where it states:

  III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and
      angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to
      everlasting death.

  IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are
      particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and
      definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Why or how would they justify that by using the scriptures? Having justified that, why are only some people predestined for certain salvation and some others for certain damnation, with presumably the rest being left for fate or whatever choice those people decide to make (A concession for Arminianism)?

Note that this response has been divided into two parts: the first is the original response, and the second tries to elaborate based on a comment from the OP.
Part 1
Great question. This response includes a very brief description of some of the basic points of predestination/election, and some references with in-depth, historic information.

Here are a few main points of predestination/election, which it sounds like you may already be aware of. Again, these points are part of Reformed/"Calvinist" theology, and there are many that would disagree.

Reformed theology emphasizes God's motivation to glorify himself, to "bring glory to his name." Note that, according to reformed theology, this does not make him selfish, because man was designed and created to worship God, so glorifying God is what is best for man. (See John Piper, & what is sometimes called "Christian Hedonism." Resources at DesigingGod.org).
All are considered guilty in Adam, and therefore "deserve" the torment of hell (see the doctrine of "original sin").
Because God is sovereign, he does not "owe" salvation to anyone, and would be justified in sending all of humanity to hell.
God is glorified in the greatness of his mercy by electing some to salvation, which they cannot earn.
God is glorified in the greatness of his wrath, by sending others to hell -- either those who are "not elect" or who are "elected to damnation" (see the doctrine of "double predestination").

Again, from the perspective of reformed theology, it is important to note that those who are predestined for salvation are in no way "deserving" of God's mercy, and there is no way to "earn" or "merit" redemption. (See the doctrines of "monergistic" vs "synergistic" regeneration).
How God has decided specifically which individuals will go to heaven is explained either as "random" or as one of the "mysteries" not revealed to man.

Some brief history and additional reference material. Your question is about the Westminster Confession and what it says about predestination; the Confession was published in 1646, but the question of predestination had been ongoing for sometime. One important document where it is addressed directly is the Canons of Dordt (sometimes "Dort"). Several followers of Arminius published a "Remonstrance" in 1610 in Holland, refuting some elements of reformed doctrine, and the Synod of Dordt was created to respond to their assertions. The Synod published their conclusions in a document called the Canons of Dordt in 1618. It is generally considered the source of the "five points of Calvinism," or "T.U.L.I.P." -- Calvin himself never actually outlined the five points in that form -- and addresses predestination in some detail, with scripture proofs. Here are two links to the Canons of Dordt, with scripture proofs: Reformed.org; CCEL. See here for a quick explanation of the history of the five points of Calvinism.
As to your question about "[w]hy or how would they justify that by using the scriptures,"
the Westminster Assembly included extensive scripture proofs that, in their interpretation, justified all of the statements in the Standards. A full copy of the Confession, with the original proofs, can be found on the Reformed.org page linked in your question.
Note also that you can find an in-depth, detailed discussion of the creation of the Westminster Standards in the History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, published in 1853 by William Maxwell Hetherington.
There is also a very detailed chapter on the Westminster Standards in Philip Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," published 1876.
Schaff's Creeds is a widely regarded, historically important book, one that is likely to be found on the bookshelves of many historians and theologians. Hetherington's work is new to me, but I see that it is linked alongside other important historical titles by sources I have found to be credible.

Part 2
In the OP's comment on 'Part 1' of this response, he gives an analogy to further clarify the question, which I'll paraphrase here: 'if, for example, 1/3 of the people on earth are predestined for heaven, why are the other 2/3 not predestined?' I've added this "Part 2" in an attempt to better address the question.
As a preface, please note that I don't claim to be an expert on predestination, but I'll try to share what I've learned.
There is what could be described as a 'subtle' difference in two basic forms of the doctrine of predestination, with the variant being described as 'double predestination,' or 'reprobation.' This doctrine says that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and others to go to hell, and that all people are predestined for one or the other. Another version is that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and has simply "passed over" the others, leaving them to be condemned by their own guilt, which they inherited from Adam and compounded through their own actions, since "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23). The end result is the same, from the perspective of the individuals and where they spend eternity; anyone who is not elected to salvation doesn't make it to heaven, according to the doctrine of predestination. Also, note that in neither case is there a "third category." In predestination, every person is either elected to salvation, or "passed over." In double predestination, every person is elected to either salvation or reprobation. Here's a work from John Bunyan that examines the doctrine of reprobation in detail.
I realize that you've stated that your question is not about predestination, but, since these matters are all intertwined, a thorough understanding of it may help to resolve your question. This C.SE post by Caleb does a great job of explaining things, and I think it's relevant to our discussion here. He also does a good job of explaining the role of substitutionary atonement, in a very concise manner -- that is, how God can offer salvation to guilty sinners who are deserving of punishment, without being unjust, although you may already understand all of that.
The question of why God has chosen a certain number of people to be saved is a matter of his sovereign will. Since he doesn't owe salvation to anyone, and no one besides Christ is capable of "earning" salvation, God can choose to have mercy on as many or as few as he chooses -- it's a free gift that he is not required to offer. An interesting reference here is Matthew 7:13-14, which tells us that "many" [ESV] will go to hell, and "few" will go to heaven, although I haven't checked the original languages on that verse. OTOMH, that's the only reference that I know of that suggests the numbers/ratios involved in who will go to heaven and who won't, although I expect there are likely references to be found in Revelation.
You might enjoy a read of Romans 9, esp. v. 19-29, and Romans 8:29.
I suppose God could have chosen to apply Christ's atonement to everyone. (Edit: See 1 Tim 2:3, a verse sometimes seen as complicating defenses of predestination). No doctrinal references that discuss the matter come to mind, and I generally seek to avoid providing my own exposition. I do know that there is nothing that would obligate him to apply Christ's atonement to all people, and that the consistent teaching is that God did not create sin, and that he remains perfectly holy and free of all guilt in choosing to bar unforgiven sinners from his paradise. Christ's atonement is sometimes described as being "sufficient" for all, but "efficient" only for the elect -- so, the infinite merit of Christ's sacrifice means that God could justly elect to salvation as many as he willed, and he chose to save a certain number, which is not disclosed to us.
This might seem to conflict with many people's understanding of God's character. It is important to remember that Reformed theology, in an effort to accurately reflect the teachings of the bible, emphasizes God's sovereignty, as well as his motivation to glorify himself.

I hope this response doesn't seem unnecessarily complicated; your question, as I understand it, seems fairly simple at first, but it actually addresses some very contentious areas of theology that have been debated for centuries. Countless sermons, treatises, and expositions have been written on the matter. I encourage you to consult some of the sources I've linked to, especially those in the second section of part 1; I'm sure they can explain things more clearly than I can, though I suppose I could still try to revise -- and hopefully shorten! -- this answer. Cheers.


How was the Old Testament compiled? While this question is similar to this question, I'm certain the answer will be very different, and far more complex....

How was the Old Testament compiled?

The following is taken from a section of the Introduction in the "Complete Jewish Bible", English Version by David Stern, entitled The Canon

  Scholars agree that the canon of the Torah achieved its present form before the time of 'Ezra (around 445 B.C.E.), the Prophets later and the Writings last. But the final review of the canon was made by the Council of Yavneh (Jamnia) convened around 90 C.E. by Rabbi Yochanan Ben-Zakkai in the wake of the destruction of the temple by Romans twenty years earlier. Several books now included in the Tanakh were questioned—Daniel and Ezekiel, because of their startling visions and experiences; Esther, because God is not mentioned in it; Song of Songs, because of its overtly sexual character; and Ecclesiastes, because of its depressed world-viewpoint (except for the last two verses, which redeemed it). Ecclesiasticus (not the same as Ecclesiates) was rejected by the rabbis of Yavneh but is found in the Apocrypha, a collection of fifteen ancient Jewish books that include Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Catholic and Anglican Bibles include the Apocrypha. Some sixty other ancient books are collectively called the Pseudepigrapha. English language editions of the Apocrypha and the Pseudipigrapha are available.

There are several more pages of history regarding the formation of newer versions, New King James, etc. and the attribution of writings (who wrote which book) for the books of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in the Introduction I've sighted above. However, the passage above seems to best answer the question about the actual "compiling" of the Old Testament.


On the validity of the anticipated absolution in absence of the related confession According to Catholic Church, what are the cases in which the absolution can be anticipated and the confession left for a time in which it will be possible to make it?

Also, in cases of anticipated absolution, supposing that for some reason the confession cannot take place, will that absolution be valid and effective to go to Heaven?

Two questions seem to be asked:

1) When can absolution be anticipated to actual confession?, and

2) What happens if the "postponed" confession does not come to pass?

In regards to when our sins are forgiven in anticipation to confession, The Church teaches that this should happen only in cases of physical or moral impossibility (CCC 1484, in part):

  "Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession."

When absolution of one's sins is absolutely needed --- dangerous circumstances that could lead to death --- and access to a priest for confession is a physical or moral impossibility, The Church advises to make a perfect act of contrition.  As noted in other answers to this question (CCC 1451-1452):

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

  When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

So, what happens if the anticipated confession does not come to pass?

Well, a close examination of CCC 1452 reveals that, as long as we have made a perfect act of contrition: a) venial sins are forgiven, regardless of whether we confess later or not; b) mortal sins are forgiven provided that, in addition, we make a "firm resolution" to go to confession as soon as possible.  Note that only a "firm resolution" to confess as soon as possible is needed, and not necessarily the actualization of such a resolution --- this covers the cases where we die before finding a priest!  Of course God knows whether our firm resolution is sincere or not, and he can act accordingly.

As for imperfect contrition: well, in that case we are out of luck if we don't have access to confession.  The only ordinary way that The Church knows how to deal with that is through confession --- though God may still in act in extraordinary ways which we do not know --- (CCC 1453):

  The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.


How do Protestants reconcile their confession of the Athanasian Creed with sola scriptura? It must be admitted by Protestants that only the most banal of the 44 assertions of the Creed of Athanasius appear in the pages of scripture and that its authority is Catholic tradition, justified with inferences rather than explicit assertions, and yet they claim "sola scriptura". Isn't it more accurate to say that they essentially have treated the Creed as if it were canonized and authoritative in itself?

In other words, aren't they being disingenuous? Shouldn't they say, "sola scriptura plus the Creed of Athanasius"? Or rather, more broadly, "sola scriptura plus Catholic tradition"?

VERY related post

To start with, you're not understanding what Sola Scriptura actually means. It does not mean that only explicit propositions found in the scriptures are accepted. It does not mean that Protestants reject or ignore tradition, historical theology, creeds, or reason. Sola Scriptura means that Protestants think that the scriptures are the only infallible source of knowledge on this side of resurrection (on the other side we will be able to speak directly to God of course.) Sola Scriptura means that when there are questions and debates, the highest authority we can appeal to is the scriptures. But it doesn't mean the scriptures contain everything we want to know, nor that all of the scriptures are easy to understand. We interpret the scriptures under the power of the Holy Spirit, guided by generations of past Christians, using the fullness of the intellects God has granted to us.

So there's nothing to reconcile. Like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedonian Definition, the Athanasian Creed is believed by most Protestants to be an accurate summary of the theology taught by the Bible. Protestants can recite it and join the other Christians around the world who share its truths. And some Protestant denominations would endorse it as an authoritative summary of their beliefs. This does not make it part of the canon, nor does it ever sit in a higher place than the scriptures. Any Protestant church which truly believes in Sola Scriptura would allow in principle for the possibility that a deeper understanding of scripture may convince them that some aspect of the Athanasian Creed needs revising, although after all this time they'd consider that unlikely to happen.

(There is some small disagreement over some lines already, in particular the first and last. Many Protestants would disagree that doubt precludes salvation. And of course "descended into hell" is disputed by many as it is in the other creeds, but that is more an issue of translation.)


What are the essential components of a Protestant evangelical church? What are the essential attributes of a church, according to the Bible as interpreted by Protestant evangelical traditions? I've started a list but feel that it is incomplete:

Ministries
Missions
Leadership
Fellowship/Bible study Groups
Prayer Meeting
Holy Communion
Worship

Robert Warren has written the Healthy Churches Handbook, which provides a checklist for identifying the health of a church. The Seven Marks of a Healthy Church are listed in Appendix 4 and have been summarised by the Diocese of London:

  Energized by faith

  rather than just keeping things going or trying to survive

  • worship and sacramental life: moves people to experience God’s love
  • motivation: energy comes from a desire to serve God and one another
  • engaging with Scripture: in creative ways connect with life
  • nurtures faith in Christ: helping people to grow in, and share their faith.
  Outward-looking focus

  with a 'whole life' rather than a 'church life' concern

  • deeply rooted in the local community, working in partnership with other denominations, faiths, secular groups and networks
  • passionate and prophetic about justice and peace, locally and globally
  • makes connections between faith and daily living
  • responds to human need by loving service
  Seeks to find out what God wants

  discerning the Spirit’s leaning rather than trying to please everyone

  • vocation: seeks to explore what God wants it to be and do
  • vision: develops and communicates a shared sense of where it is going
  • mission priorities: consciously sets both immediate and long-term goals
  • able to call for, and make, sacrifices, personal and corporate, in bringing about the above and living out the faith.
  Faces the cost of change and growth

  rather than resisting change and avoiding failure

  • while embracing the past, it dares to take on new ways of doing things
  • takes risks: and admits when things are not working, and learns from experience
  • crises: responds creatively to challenges that face the church and community
  • positive experiences of change: however small, are affirmed and built on.
  Operates as a community

  rather than functioning as a club or religious organisation

  • relationships: are nurtured, often in small groups, so people feel accepted and are helped to grow in faith and service
  • leadership: lay and ordained work as a team to develop locally appropriate expressions of all seven marks of a healthy church
  • lay ministry: the different gifts, experiences and faith journeys of all are valued and given expression in and beyond the life of the church.
  Makes room for all

  being inclusive rather than exclusive.

  • welcome: works to include newcomers into the life of the church
  • children and young people: are helped to belong, contribute and be nurtured in their faith
  • enquirers are encouraged to explore and experience faith in Christ
  • diversities: different social and ethnic backgrounds, mental and physical abilities, and ages, are seen as a strength.
  Does a few things and do them well

  focused rather than frenetic

  • does the basics well: especially public worship, pastoral care, stewardship and administration
  • occasional offices: make sense of life and communicate faith
  • being good news as a church in its attitudes and ways of working
  • enjoys what it does and is relaxed about what is not being done

There is almost certainly a significant overlap between these "marks" and the list you have formulated, but his number 4 and number 7 might be slightly surprising. Your list identifies some of some of Warren's bullet-point evidences of the major underlying characteristics.


Are gluten free diets in violation of the word of wisdom? Aside from celiacs and others with medical disorders which prevent them from eating certain grains, is there an official LDS church stance in relation to people who optionally choose to live a gluten free lifestyle, based on these verses in the word of wisdom:

  14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, [...]

  16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

  17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. (D&C 89:14,16-17)

There is no doctrinal condemnation for gluten free diets.  The Lord expects us to make judgement calls based on what we are given in many instances.  Someone living glueten free will not be kept from the temple.

In Doctrine and Covenants 58, verse 26 the Lord said:

  For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

A lot of things are not black and white.

In Preach My Gospel, Chapter 4, the missionary handbook, this is the "black and white" of the Word of Wisdom

  Remember that our bodies are sacred. We should treat them with respect and reverence. The Word of Wisdom teaches that we are to eat healthy foods. It teaches very specifically that we are to avoid harmful substances, including alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. We must also avoid harmful drugs in any form.

I believe the answer to this question is personal and between the individual and God.


How would Matthew 24:36 be explained from a Post-Tribulation perspective? Matthew 24:36 reads:

  But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (NIV)

Wouldn't Post-Trib adherents be able to say that you could indeed calculate the exact day of Christ's return, because it would be exactly 7 years from the signing/enforcing of the peace treaty with Israel that's prophesied in the Bible?

You are really asking two questions here:

Do post-tribulation premillennialists believe that the Bible prophesies any events that can be used to make an exact prediction of the timing of Christ's Second Coming?
If so, how do post-tribulation premillennialists square this with Matthew 24:36?

The question that needs to be primarily addressed is actually the first one, not the second.  Two prominent post-tribulation premillennialists, George E. Ladd and Wayne Grudem, argue that the signs prophesied in the Bible are not of a nature that we can draw firm conclusions regarding the timing of Christ's return.

Non-dispensationalists like Grudem do not find that Daniel 9 and related passages provide evidence of a literal, fixed-length peace treaty with Israel.  Rather, the signs he sees taught in Scripture that must be fulfilled prior to Christ's Second Coming are the following:

Preaching of the Gospel to all nations (Mark 13:10)

Probably not fulfilled, but possible in light of Paul's language in Colossians 1:5–6, "in the whole world."

Great tribulation (Mark 13:7–8)

Probably not fulfilled, but possible that it was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem (AD 66–70).

False prophets (Mark 13:22)

Probably not fulfilled, but it may have been fulfilled in the many examples of false prophets that have arisen throughout Christian history.

Signs in the heavens (Mark 13:24–25)

Almost certainly not fulfilled.  However, "they could occur very quickly," on the order of minutes or hours, and thus this does not suggest that Christ could not return at any time.

Appearance of the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:1–10)

Probably not fulfilled, but it is still possible that the "man of lawlessness" could refer to a historical figure, whether a Roman emperor or a Hitler/Stalin.

All Israel to be saved (Romans 11:26)

Probably not fulfilled, but perhaps Paul referred simply to the kind of Jewish conversion to Christianity that we have seen throughout church history.

Given this analysis, Grudem concludes that Christ's return is imminent, and that the only the unfulfilled "signs in the heavens" could be used as a predictor.  However, because they may last only an extremely brief time, we must admit that Christ could return at any time, and we cannot predict his coming:

  The only sign that seems certainly not to have occurred, the darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, could occur within the space of a few minutes, and therefore it seems appropriate to say that Christ could now return at any hour of the day or night. (Systematic Theology, chapter 54)

Ladd's approach is similar.  Dealing with Jesus's predictions in the Olivet Discourse, he writes:

  The Olivet Discourse describes no signs by which the end can be calculated. [...] False messiahs will arise; wars will occur; "but the end is not yet" (Mark 13:7).  These events are not signs of an imminent end; they will occur, but the end delays.  Rather than being signs of the end, they are only "the beginning of woes" (Mark 13:8) which will mark the entire age. (The Presence of the Future, 326–27)

Ladd thus sees "no conflict between the Olivet Discourse and Jesus'saying that the end will come without signs which can be calculated." Other signs that he accepts, like that of the Gospel being preached to all nations, can't be used for calculations either, since it is difficult to know when they are fulfilled.

Summary

Post-tribulation premillennialists, and more generally most non-dispensationalists, are hesitant to literally interpret the Bible's apocalyptic passages.  Thus, they typically do not see any of the events signalling the return of Christ to be sufficiently specific as to allow anyone to calculate the date of Christ's return.

Thus, Matthew 24:36 and similar passages do not need to be explained: "Post-tribs" hold that Jesus is clearly teaching that no man can know the day or the hour, and neither can any man predict it on the basis of the fulfillment of signs.


Why is Jesus very implicit regarding his identity? Why is Jesus very implicit in sharing his identity?
In the synoptic gospels Jesus speaks in parables and metaphors and at the end of many of these encounters it is mentioned that the people did not understand what Jesus meant (Luke 2:49-50, Luke 9:45, Luke 18:34).
Jesus uses various titles and refers to himself as the Son of Man, and calls God his Father.
In Luke 9:20 Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, they say the Messiah of God, and he leaves it at that, and does not give them further information.
Demons he cast out would tell of his identity yet he would silence them (Luke 4:35, Luke 4:41)
After some of his miracles he tells people not to share what they've seen (Luke 5:14, Luke 8:56).
People are stumped at his authority to cast out demons, forgive sins, and control the weather, yet he does not explain this to them and leaves them befuddled (Luke 4:36, Luke 5:21, Luke 7:49, Luke 8:25)
And whenever he does share or speak of his identity, he also does so implicitly, never clearly (Luke 17:18).
During his temptation he alludes to himself being God when he recites biblical verses. (Luke 4:12)
There are also confusing verses which might lead us to believe that Jesus is not claiming to be God (Luke 18:19).
Jesus has no issue exhibiting his supernatural powers either to crowds or to individuals, but in some instances requests that they be kept secret in order to conceal his identity. Jesus tends to be very mystical in his speech -- he speaks in parables and does not expand upon them even if his audience does not understand. Jesus does not correct his followers regarding his identity or directly explain to them who he is. Even if Jesus alludes to his divinity it is always muddy and never a clear-cut and definitive "I am God" or "I am the Messiah".
Why is Jesus very vague about his identity and sometimes outright tries to conceal it?

By providing an extensive list of passages to buttress the legitimacy of your question you show yourself astute in biblical matters.
Rather than attempting to wow you with a list of my own, I will simply suggest three inescapable principles behind Jesus's modus operandi regarding his identity.

Jesus was guided in each of his waking hours by his Father. What his Father wanted him to do, he did.

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him (John 8:29 KJV).

If Jesus seems at times to be hedging, the reason is that he is being led by his Father to do so.

Dovetailing with the above reason are the times when Jesus neither said nor did anything which would unnecessarily alter the timetable regarding his glorification at the cross. In Cana of Galilee where Jesus performed his first public miracle, he said to his mother,

“Woman,[The Greek for Woman does not denote any disrespect.] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4 NIV).

That pre-miracle comment by Jesus was a teaching moment, in which he cautions his mother against being out of step, so to speak, with his Father's will. Jesus went on, of course, to perform the miracle, but the cautionary remark to his mother was to appear in different forms and situations throughout his public ministry, leading up to the cross. For example,

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ (Matthew 16:20).

Interestingly, as if to explain why he cautioned his disciples against revealing his Messiahship, we then read in the next verse in Matthew 16,

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

In other words, while Jesus's face was set like a flint going toward Jerusalem (see Isaiah 50:7 NKJV), the timing of his final arrival in the city of Peace was perhaps just as important as his determination to get there.

Jesus's modus operandi included instances in which he was deliberately cryptic, primarily, I believe, to weed out the looky-loos and hypocrites from the truly sincere and committed followers. What you could call a proof text for this assertion is found in Matthew 13 (cf. also Mark 4 and Luke 8):

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive . . .(vss. 13-14).

If Jesus seems to have been a bit cagey about his identity, which I personally believe he was not, really, he may have been because he never engaged in braggadocio or cockalorum. In the instances in which he was more direct in revealing his identity, he meant to get his audiences to think seriously about the implications for them regarding his Deity and Messiahship. He had no need to trumpet his greatness, as did Mohammed Ali in my day, who said frequently, "I am the greatest."


What do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about water baptism and is baptism by full water immersion essential to salvation? This question has arisen from answers to a question I recently asked about the Lutheran Church and what they teach about salvation (they call it justification) and whether or not they think water baptism is essential to salvation.  A comment was left suggesting that Lutherans, Presbyterians, most Reformed Protestants and Catholics promote infant baptism and that they recognize the baptisms of other Trinitarian denominations.

However, Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject infant baptism and advocate full water immersion of adults who fully understand what they are doing and what baptism means.  Many Catholics and Protestants who become Jehovah’s Witnesses have already been baptised (sprinkling) as infants.  What is the official position of the organisation – do they then have to undergo full water immersion in order to be accepted and recognised as Jehovah’s Witnesses?

After a period of intensive study with a U.K. Baptist church, I was baptised by full water immersion as an adult “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The U.K. Baptist Church has never believed that baptism is essential to salvation.  Neither does their baptism mean you have become “a Baptist”.  Rather, baptism is understood as an outward symbol of having come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  If I now wanted to become a Jehovah’s Witness would I have to be re-baptised, or would my earlier baptism be valid? I ask because of what I read in the Watchtower Study Edition April 2017 article ‘What You Vow Pay’:

  “11 Have you dedicated your life to Jehovah and symbolized your dedication by water baptism? If so, that is wonderful! Recall that on your baptism day, before eyewitnesses, you were asked whether you had dedicated yourself to Jehovah and understood that “your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization.” Your affirmative answers served as a public declaration of your unreserved dedication and showed that you were qualified for baptism as an ordained minister of Jehovah. You must have made Jehovah very happy!  Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2017/what-you-vow-pay/

To sum up: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe adult water baptism (full immersion) is essential to salvation, and would they recognise the baptism of a person from another denomination who wanted to become a Jehovah’s Witness as valid or would they have to be re-baptised?  This question is not about “right or wrong” but is seeking clarification on how Jehovah’s Witnesses view baptism in relation to salvation.

You are correct  that Jehovah’s Witnesses reject infant baptism.
We believe a person must be old enough to be a disciple. A disciple is a learner or taught one. Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. (Matt.28:19-20)
We also teach that full immersion is necessary to follow the manner in which our exemplar Jesus was baptized. In fact the Greek words translated baptize or baptism refer to immersing,dipping, or plunging under the water.
As far as the part of your question about a previous baptism in another religion being valid for Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer is no.
Being baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is preceded by an extensive teaching program and a person will have to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of bible teachings, live in harmony with them and give an affirmative response to the question “ Do you really want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”
Additionally there are over 100 other questions that are discussed to ascertain that a person meets the scriptural requirements for baptism.
Also as you point out in your question on the day of a new JWs baptism they answer yes to the question do you recognize that  “your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization.?”
Is baptism essential for salvation?
It is expected that a person who “comes to an accurate knowledge of Jehovah and the one He sent  forth Jesus Christ” would be moved to dedicate their lives to Jehovah and symbolize it by being baptized.
Still we understand that baptism itself is not what saves. Salvation is possible only because God’s Son died a sacrificial death and was resurrected.
Added to that is the requirement to maintain a good conscience before God by continuing to conform to His standards.
Baptism only saves us if we remain faithful as witnesses of Jehovah.
More info here


According to Catholicism, what are the requirements for baptism? In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for example, everyone who desires to enter the waters of baptism must first be interviewed to see if they qualify for baptism:

  Qualifications for Baptism

  Doctrine and Covenants 20:37:

  Humble themselves before God.
  Desire to be baptized.
  Come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits.
  Repent of all their sins.
  Be willing to take upon them the name of Christ.
  Have a determination to serve Christ to the end.
  Manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto a remission of their sins.

  First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve:

  Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
  Develop faith in Christ.
  Repent of transgressions.
  Live the principles of moral worthiness.
  Live the Word of Wisdom.
  Commit to pay tithing.
  Receive all the missionary lessons [lessons 1–4 on the Teaching Record and associated commitments].
  Meet the bishop or branch president.
  Attend several sacrament meetings.

No one may be accepted into the waters of baptism unless they meet these requirements, this includes children, children are not baptized until they reach what is known as the age of accountability (8 years old), which has been determined to be the age when children can distinguish between right and wrong.

What qualifications do Catholics have for baptism?

Most Catholics are baptized as infants; consequently, there are two sets of requirements: one for the parents or guardians of infants who are to be baptized, and one for adults (those who have "reached the age of reason", which is not specified in the Code of Canon Law and may be perhaps left up to the local bishop).

The general church-wide rules regarding baptism are found in Canons 850 to 878 of the Code of Canon Law

The Church baptizes only once, so that only those who have never been baptized are eligible for baptism (cf. Canon 864). Typically, those who have been baptized in a Protestant or Orthodox denomination are considered by the bishop to have been baptized.

With respect to infants:

Since a name is typically bestowed at baptism, the priest must make sure that it's not a completely anti-Christian name (no swear words as names, no naming your child after Satan, etc. (cf. Canon 855)
At least one of the parents or guardians must consent
It must be at least reasonably likely (in the opinion of the priest) that the child will be brought up Catholic
The parents are to attend some sacramental preparation classes (the exact requirements for what is taught there, how long, and so on are up to the local bishop)

(Note: if either of these last two are not fulfilled, the baptism is valid; that is, the person is still considered as baptized. However, it is illicit; it's not in the proper format. Illicit baptisms could be performed in emergencies, say, in danger of death; but they are not supposed to be the norm.)

With respect to adults:

Generally speaking, they must have some reasonable amount of instruction in the faith. Canon 865, section 1, states:

  For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

There are also requirements for sponsors (the Catholic church requires them; for infants there are usually two, who must be a man and a woman, and they are typically known as godparents; for adults there is usually only one), and requirements for who may do the baptism. But these are the specific Church-wide requirements, so far as they go, for the person baptized.

Note:

Here, as requested in comment, are the specific requirements word-for-word out of the Code of Canon Law:

  Book IV: Function of the Church
  Part I: The Sacraments
  Title I: BAPTISM
  CHAPTER III.

  THOSE TO BE BAPTIZED

  Canon 864 Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism [i.e. is eligible to be baptized].

  Canon 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

  §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

  Canon 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion.

  Canon 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

  §2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

  Canon 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

  1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

  2. there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

  §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

  Canon 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

  §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community [that is, generally speaking, Protestants] must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

  §3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

  Canon 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

  Canon 871 If aborted fetuses are alive, they are to be baptized insofar as possible.


Seeking a richer Catholic understanding of passion vs intellect as it applies to our first parents I was tempted to answer this question about freewill and Adam and Eve but I chose not to because all I've got it conjecture and I'm not even sure if it's not borderline heresy on the matter.  What I'd like to know is if what I would have answered lines up with Catholic thought.

I would have said:

  Adam and Eve could sin because they chose to follow their intellect and made a rational decision that being like God was in fact a good idea. They could give in to temptation, without following their passions (as they had complete self-mastery in this regard) for the same reason that Lucifer could want to be like God.

Then I might have gone on with:

  In this way God shows us the difference between following divine law (i.e. not eating an apple because God commanded it) and not following natural law (i.e. not intentionally eating (or giving someone) a poisoned apple because it will cause death) and divine law is a kind of law that can be violated without giving into your passions.  That is to say, an act of pure intellect can violate divine law, but violating natural law requires giving in to the passions (intentionally diverting your will from your intellect).

If someone could run that through their Catholic fluff and heresy parser and give me a readout I'd sure appreciate it before I go and tell it to my Religious Ed. kids, should the matter arise.

The short answer to your question is to review the Haydock Commentary of the 3rd Chapter of Genesis.

I feel like I should add more, but I'm not smart enough to top the incomparable Haydock commentary. Here are a couple short, relevant snippets:

  Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent
  had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with
  a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had
  given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power,
  and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi.
  30. She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil.
  (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle
  of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of
  the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses
  relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from
  the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was
  the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word
  of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set
  heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)

  Ver. 5. God. The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our
  happiness. (Haydock) --- Or he would have Eve to suppose, she had not
  rightly understood her maker, who would surely never deprive her of a
  fruit which would give her such an increase of knowledge, as to make
  her conclude she was before comparatively blind. (Menochius) --- As
  gods, Hebrew Elohim, which means also princes, angels, or judges. It
  appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the
  hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things. (Calmet)


How long are extraordinary ministers allowed to possess the Eucharist? I was reading the answers to this question on Skeptics.SE and relating it back to my own life here on Earth. I see some extraordinary ministers taking the Eucharist to the homebound and they're usually in a rush to get there.

So, what is the maximum amount of time they're allowed to posses the Eucharist and what do they do if they find they cannot deliver the Eucharist?

The answer to the Skeptics.SE question you cite says a Presbyterian minister "supplied the communion kit (bread, wine and cup)." Since Presbyterian ministers are not valid, ordained priests, they are unable to effect transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; thus, what Aldrin had was not the Eucharist but only "bread, wine and cup."

Traditionally, only Catholic priests, whose hands have been consecrated upon receiving the Sacrament of Orders, can touch the Sacred Species with their fingers. Laypeople touching the Eucharistic Species should be a rare extraordinary (i.e., out-of-the-ordinary) exception.

Paul VI wrote in his 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion (Memoriale Domini):

  Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

Notice, he says Communion in peoples' hands is a "contrary usage," contrary to the traditional practice of the Church; however, he opened the door to bishops' conferences abusing this contrary usage by allowing Communion in the hand.

Thus, there isn't a law regulating what should be a very rare occurrence in extreme situations, e.g., someone is to steal the Eucharist and a layperson is the only one around, then of course he or she should touch and consume or help others consume the Eucharist as quickly as possible.

Cf. my answer to the question "How are Roman Catholics to receive the holy Eucharist at Mass?"


Do messianic Jews claim to be the beneficiaries of the new covenant now? Do messianic Jews say that the following is true in their lives?:

  NIV Jer 31:
  33b: ...“I will put my law in their minds
  and write it on their hearts.
  I will be their God,
  and they will be my people.
  34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
  or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
  because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest,”

We are told in Hebrews 10:9-18 (and elsewhere) that Jesus ratified the new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah when he died. It appears that the new covenant speaks of a pan-Israeli supernatural knowledge  of the Torah rather than individual knowledge involving teaching that I've not heard any express as being realized in modern times.

What do messianic Jews say about the outworking of the new covenant? Was it fulfilled in apostolic times and now gone? Is it active now? Or will it be active in the future?

I knew a Messianic Rabbi years ago, he and his congregation definitely accepted the New Covenant and the same goes for others I have since met online.  (Meaning they accepted Christ as Savior, accepted the Council of the Book of Acts that gentiles are not bound by the Mosaic law etc.).

Anyway, that rabbi tended to relate Messianic Judaism along the lines of "Wild" and "Natural" Olive Tree branches quoted at the end of this post.   His ambition was to be an evangelistic outreach to traditional Jews, as well as provide a spiritual home for them, and he wanted to be a resource for gentiles that would show them the Jewish context of the Gospel and the rest of the Bible (I think he wanted to do a lot the stuff that Jonathan Cahn currently does).

  Romans 11
  13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

  17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.


Have Creationists advanced any particular Theories of Origin that they claim are falsifiable via the scientific method? This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of this question - any  edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome.

To clarify the key term in use:

  Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki

In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.

Reasons to Believe is an organization which presents arguments in favor of Old Earth Creation, and on their Who We Are page, founder Hugh Ross states:

  One of the approaches I've developed, with the help of my RTB colleagues, is a biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive.

Their web site offers an overview of their "falsifiable" creation model approach, which includes:

  Using a model approach supplies researchers with enough detail to assist in further study. It offers explanations for how, when, where, and why the phenomena (or system) occurs. It anticipates, or “predicts,” discoveries that could either verify or falsify the model's explanation(s). The best models also yield specific suggestions for how near-future research may help improve understanding of the systems or phenomena they attempt to explain.

One example (the first I found) of a theory which they claim is falsifiable can be found in this article:

  These morphologically indistinguishable, yet genetically distinct ecomorphs can be properly considered as one of the many fingerprints that the Creator has left on His creation. In fact, if a single Creator was responsible for life, one could anticipate seeing repeated examples of the same blueprint throughout the biological realm. One would expect that a single Creator would reuse successful designs over and over again.

Note that this is not an academic article, so it's targeted at lay people, and as such the terminology is rather imprecise for my taste. It also seems to me that their claims of falsifiability are somewhat subjective, so I simply present them here as evidence that Creationists do, indeed, claim to produce falsifiable theories.


If God "shows no partiality," how do Calvinists defend predestination? There are a number of verses in the Bible that say that God is "not partial" (Deuteronomy 10:17) or that he "shows no partiality" (Romans 2:11, ESV).  How do Calvinists square such verses with their doctrine of predestination, in which God specifically chooses some people to be saved but not others?

Related question, but not specific to challenges based on these passages: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?

Summary: Calvinists interpret these passages as referring to God's righteousness and justice — that he is a fair judge, consistently judging sin as wrong, whether committed by rich or poor, strong or weak, native or foreigner.  They do not indicate that God's gracious gifts – wealth, strength, and even salvation – are distributed equally to all.

Calvinists argue that the context of Deuteronomy 10:17–18 makes it clear that "partiality" here refers to God being a just judge, like many other similar passages in the Old Testament:

  17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. (ESV)

John Calvin says that here "God distinguishes Himself from men, who are carried away by outward appearance, to hold the rich in honor, and the poor in contempt; to favor the beautiful or the eloquent, and to despise the unseemly."1 Obviously the phrasing "not partial" here cannot mean that "God's justice requires that everyone have identical gifts," since these very verses presume the existence of the weak, poor, and foreign.  Rather, God "does not regard persons," as older English translations put it: he does not give weight to the outward appearance and station of men.

John Frame2 points out that, a few chapters earlier (Deuteronomy 7), we see this principle applied to the election of Israel:

  7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (ESV)

God's election here follows the same principle: he does not show "partiality" by choosing a powerful people. Neither is his choice based on Israel's merit (Deuteronomy 9:4, 6), but rather it is simply an act of grace (Deuteronomy 10:15, Ezekiel 16:1–14).2  The ultimate reason for electing some and not others is a mystery to us (Romans 9:15–21, Exodus 33:19),3 but we know it is not "partiality." (For more on this mystery, see: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?)

Other passages refer God's lack of partiality in the context of Jew vs. Gentile, like Acts 10:34–35 and, quoted below, Romans 2:9–11:

  9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. (ESV)

Here, Calvin says, we see that God regards "purity of heart or inward integrity," not "kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things," and that on this basis Jews and Gentiles "are both without any distinction exposed to eternal death." He then proceeds to rebut what he elsewhere calls the Pelagian objection:

  But if any hence objects and says, "That then there is no such thing as the gratuitous election of God;" it may be answered, That there is a twofold acceptation of men before God; the first, when he chooses and calls us from nothing through gratuitous goodness, as there is nothing in our nature which can be approved by him; the second, when after having regenerated us, he confers on us his gifts, and shows favor to the image of his Son which he recognizes in us."4

That is to say: God shows no partiality in his judgment, nor does he base election on something in a particular man's nature.  Instead, he chooses and blesses the elect out of grace alone.

Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Volume 3, Eighth Commandment
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013), ISBN: 9781596382176, p210
Frame, p223–24
Calvin, Commentary on Romans.  The "Pelagian" language is found in his Commentary on Acts 10:34.


Who first coined the term "Christian"? It is correct that the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, but not coined by just someone who made up nicknames.

Is it possible that St. Ignatius, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch coined this term?

Who first coined the term “Christian”?

The short answer is we just do not know. It is doubtful that it was St. Ignatius of Antioch!

It is true that the term Christian was first employed at Antioch; there exist no historical evidence as to who coined this term.

  The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28). The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Peter 4:16).

  Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.

  The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;" Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians" and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome. - Etymology of the term Christian (Wikipedia)

Although we do not know who actually coined the term Christian for those who follow The Way; it quite possible that it was coined by the pagans of Antioch.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is however accredited with coining the term Catholic.

  The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

  Of the meaning for Ignatius of this phrase J.H. Srawley wrote:

    This is the earliest occurrence in Christian literature of the phrase 'the Catholic Church' (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία). The original sense of the word is 'universal'. Thus Justin Martyr (Dial. 82) speaks of the 'universal or general resurrection', using the words ἡ καθολικὴ ἀνάστασις. Similarly here the Church universal is contrasted with the particular Church of Smyrna. Ignatius means by the Catholic Church 'the aggregate of all the Christian congregations' (Swete, Apostles Creed, p. 76). So too the letter of the Church of Smyrna is addressed to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place. And this primitive sense of 'universal' the word has never lost, although in the latter part of the second century it began to receive the secondary sense of 'orthodox' as opposed to 'heretical'. Thus it is used in an early Canon of Scripture, the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 A.D.), which refers to certain heretical writings as 'not received in the Catholic Church'. So too Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, says that the Church is called Catholic not only 'because it is spread throughout the world', but also 'because it teaches completely and without defect all the doctrines which ought to come to the knowledge of men'. This secondary sense arose out of the original meaning because Catholics claimed to teach the whole truth, and to represent the whole Church, while heresy arose out of the exaggeration of some one truth and was essentially partial and local.

  By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the universal church. Ignatius considered that certain heretics of his time, who disavowed that Jesus was a material being who actually suffered and died, saying instead that "he only seemed to suffer" (Smyrnaeans, 2), were not really Christians. Historical use of the term Catholic (Wikipedia)

Side note:

  According to an ancient tradition, St. Ignatius of Antioch was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven. From that day the child, who was most beloved by the Savior and favoured with the divine embrace, was also marked as the one upon whom lions would feast in the Roman Colosseum.

    At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-4)


How does an unconfirmed Catholic engaged person get confirmed before marriage? I'm engaged but haven't completed my confirmation. The Church requires me to get confirmed before marriage. How do I go about getting it done?

Technically, one does not absolutely need to be confirmed in order to be married. Canon 1065 section 1 of the Code of Canon Law reads

Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage if it can be done without grave inconvenience.
(emphasis added)

What constitutes "grave inconvenience" is ultimately up to the bishop, who according to canon 882 is the ordinary minister of Confirmation. But the term "grave" is reserved for very serious situations, such as when the bishop is exiled from the diocese. It's safe to say that under nearly all situations, you do indeed have to get confirmed.
The pastor, who is the lowest-level person spiritually responsible for the one to be confirmed, bears the responsibility of making sure that they are spiritually prepared for the Sacrament:

Pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time.
(Canon 890)

This preparation is important, and includes gaining an understanding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how the Spirit works in one's life:

Preparation for Confirmation should aim at leading the Christian toward a more intimate union with Christ and a more lively familiarity with the Holy Spirit—his actions, his gifts, and his biddings—in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life. To this end catechesis for Confirmation should strive to awaken a sense of belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, the universal Church as well as the parish community.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1309)

Parishes typically run a program of catechesis (known as the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, or RCIA) for those adults who are planning to enter the Church each Easter Vigil. All these people will be confirmed; those who have not been baptized as Christians will be baptized as well. Those who are already members of the Church are typically welcome at RCIA sessions; and this would seem to be a handy approach to the catechesis needed for an unconfirmed Catholic to be confirmed. The difficulty with this is that RCIA sessions are planned to be over just before Easter; timing may be an issue especially if the couple first meets the priest in the late spring.
The priest preparing the couple for marriage—ordinarily the pastor of the parish—ought to ask whether both have been confirmed, and typically requests their baptismal certificate, which has a record of the confirmation. Thus, he should know that one of the couple has not been confirmed, and should be in a position to recommend the proper course of receiving catechesis for the Sacrament. It is likely, but not necessary, that attendance at RCIA sessions will provide the needed catechesis. If that approach is not taken, the pastor may undertake the catechesis himself, or may appoint another person or persons to do so, at his option.


In CS Lewis's 'Transposition' essay, what does he mean, in the last sentence, by 'meaning'? "a meaning, a transvaluation"...

Meaning as in 'meaning of life' sort of meaning...like 'purpose' or 'reason'...

Or 'meaning' as in, as he was talking about previously, the sort of 'new understanding' one might realise by finding out that the things pictures are of (trees, cathedrals and such like) are not, like the pictures themselves, 2d, but are, instead, 3d...

So, 'meaning' as in 'purpose behind all' or as in 'full clarity of what we sense'?

Here is a more full context:

  May we not, by a reasonable analogy, suppose likewise that there is no
  experience of the spirit so transcendent and supernatural, no vision
  of Deity Himself so close and so far beyond all images and emotions,
  that to it also there cannot be an appropriate correspondence on the
  sensory level? Not by a new sense but by the incredible flooding of
  those very sensations we now have with a meaning, a transvaluation, of
  which we have here no faintest guess?

To me it seems as if the word "meaning" here is being used as in "signification". As in, "What does it mean?" Or, "What does it signify?" The word "transvaluation" means literally, "a valuation beyond". The dictionary has in its definition the idea of using a standard to evaluate that is not the normal one. Lewis is saying here that our senses will have experiences in correspondence with what will be in heaven, but they will have a meaning that is on a whole different scale from what we experience now.

That it does not mean "purpose" or "reason" in this context, I think we can gather from the fact that Lewis is talking about what will, at the time of the flooding of "those very sensations we now have", be in the present. He is not talking about purpose, I don't think, or telos. That is, he is talking about what our present sensations will mean at some future time. But that future time will not, in itself, be pointing even further forward in time, as if it were a reason for something else. Indeed, time will have come to an end when this flooding happens!


Parable of The Two Sons [Matthew 21:28-31] It is a very powerful parable indeed but I am very curious about the first and the second son, their chronology. In many places in the bible, e.g. Romans 2:9-10 I perceive the Jews denoted as the first and the gentiles as the second which I see is close to the context when Jesus said in Matthew 19:30

Matthew 19:30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Romans 2:9-10 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

But in this parable, Matthew 21:28-31, The order is different, do you have any thoughts or ideas or even better has anyone been touched by the Holy Spirit on this parable?

Matthew 21:28-31
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

These are three entirely unrelated passages. The first two do not explain or qualify the third.

Matthew 19:30, which says that many who are first shall be last and the last shall be first,  should be read in conjunction with the parable that follows, in which the householder paid first those who began their hire last, then paid those who began their hire first, paying all an equal amount (Matthew 20:9-10). In this account, Jesus then says that it is lawful for him to choose those he will (presumably for salvation).

In Romans 2:9-10, there is no dichotomy of first and last. Paul simply mentions the Jews first in both cases, perhaps because he himself was a Jew and he often expresses concern for the spiritual welfare of the Jews. Paul then says (2:11) that God is impartial, in other words favouring neither Jew nor Gentile.

The parable of the two sons, in Matthew 21:28-31, is about the importance of repentance. It says that just as the repentant son found favour, so will publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus explains this parable in Matthew 21:32, saying that the publicans and harlots believed John the Baptist and, because they believed, repented. And just as the lying son deserved less than his repentant brother, so also those who did not believe John, and have not repented, are less deserving than the publicans and harlots. Here, Jesus is simply saying that even those of the lowest social standing will come first if they have faith and repent.


Usage of Hades in the New Testament If Hades is the name of a Greek god, why then did it find its way into the Greek translation into the New Testament? Wouldn't the NT writers refrain from associating their beliefs to Greek polytheism? Thanks.

I suppose the authors of the Greek New Testament scriptures could have simply transliterated the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek, perhaps as Σεολ. But, even if they had done that, Greeks wouldn't have had the faintest idea what this so-called "Σεολ" was, unless they first spent countless hours studying its equivalent in Hebrew, i.e. שְׁאוֹל (remember, early cultures didn't have the luxuries that we do, including electricity and online lexicons; even the possession of scrolls was a luxury of the wealthy).

The Greeks already had a name for the underworld, which they called ᾅδης. Recognizing this, the authors of the Septuagint were the first to translate the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek by the word ᾅδης circa 250 B.C. Since the authors of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint (often quoting from it or its Greek prototype), and the "seventy" (or seventy-two, depending on which tradition you accept) had incorporated ᾅδης into the LXX for their translation of שְׁאוֹל, the authors of the Greek New Testament probably decided it was easier to simply continue using ᾅδης rather than re-invent the wheel.

As for ᾅδης being the name of a Greek god, I'm sure the authors were aware of that, but I assume they still incorporated it because they believed the Greeks' notions of ᾅδης (as the underworld) weren't irreconcilable with the Jews' notions of שְׁאוֹל.

That brings up another point: we could also ask why the authors chose the word οὐρανός, which we translate into English as "heaven," when it too was the name of a Greek god.


What is the Biblical basis for 'term eldership'? Some churches who appoint elders do so for a term (3 years is typical from what I have seen).  Other churches ordain elders for life.  Is there a Biblical basis for ordaining elders for a term?

Some people in the Bible who had leadership roles held those roles for life. For example, the Old Testament kings and the New Testament apostles apparently held leadership roles for life. Others held temporary posts, like the Judges. I don't recall any place in the Bible where someone held an office for a fixed amount of time, as is common today. But as Flimzy says, nothing in the Bible says that any office must be for life or for a specific term. (Well, except "husband" and "wife", if you think of those as offices.) At least, I can't think of any.