What was the hour of the Annunciation? I'm reading Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives" and he indicates how Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening. Also Gabriel appears to Daniel (Dn 9, 21) at the same hour:

  As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man, Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice.

Now, I can't confirm that Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening sacrifice, because there apparently were two "incense sacrifices in a day", one in the morning and another in the evening. But it would make sense if it was in the evening.

Things get more interesting. We only know of Gabriel because of the book of Daniel and because of these two apparitions in Luke. Two of them apparently happened in the evening. What about Mary? Benedict XVI doesn't say as far as I've read but he points out to Psalm 141, 2:

  Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice.

The question therefore is: Do we know of any biblical text that says if Mary was praying before Gabriel's apparition? What about any interpreters, commentaries or traditions that made a case for it?

Thank you all and God bless you.

What was the hour of the Annunciation?

There is nothing in Holy Scriptures that will be of any help here. But perhaps we could start with Dom Guéranger and tradition:

  A tradition, which has come down from the apostolic ages, tells us that the great mystery of the Incarnation was achieved on the twenty-fifth day of March. [St. Augustine,  De Trinitate.  Lib. iv. cap. v.] It was at the hour of midnight, when the most holy Virgin was alone and absorbed in prayer, that the Archangel Gabriel appeared before her, and asked her, in the name of the blessed Trinity, to consent to become the Mother of God. Let us assist, in spirit, at this wonderful interview between the angel and the Virgin: and, at the same time, let us think of that other interview which took place between Eve and the serpent. A holy bishop and martyr of the second century, Saint Irenaeus, who had received the tradition from the very disciples of the apostles, shows us that Nazareth is the counterpart of Eden. [Adv. haereses. Lib. v. cap. xix.] - MARCH 25 – THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE EVER BLESSED VIRGIN ~ Dom Prosper Gueranger


How does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death? Does suffering in this life really matter?

How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?

Both answers above contain the major theme of God refining us, making us more like Him, so that after the period of suffering, the person is better than before. Now, both assume there is a period after suffering, where the person can use the lessons learned (and for many that is true).

However, there are many cases of people who suffer terribly in the world (for some, almost analogous as if they were in Hell on earth) and do not get a chance to use their "refinement".

There suffering appears pointless, sad and for many people - goes on until there last day here on earth.

In the second question, @MasonWheeler answers that it is in "preparation for the eternal world" (assuming the person is a Christian, I guess....)

This answer makes it sounds almost as if this life here on earth is completely irrelevant. (To me that sounds very dangerous way to view life but would be for another question.)

In any event, how does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?

Having buried my mother last week after seeing her go through progressively worse interventions due to complications from her pneumonia, I can only say that I wish more people would ask this question. Any Christianity that ignores the question of suffering neither addresses the reality of the Sin nor the biblical witness.
The question of suffering is central to Scripture. It is both a sign of God at work in us for our edification, and a result of the Fall.
But most importantly, and I say this with all sincerity, it is a light and transitory thing.
Paul says in Romans 8:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

He goes on to say:

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

This is a substantial claim to @MasonWheeler's answer that death is preparation for the next.
The concept that this world is bent and fallen is pretty standard in just about every form of Christianity.  That this world is not what God intended it to be is the starting port. But the hope of the Gospel is that this suffering is not the end.
That "death is swallowed up in victory" is central to our hope.  If, as Paul points out, there is no resurrection, then we above all men are most to be to be pitied.  Without the resurrection, then indeed, such suffering would be pointless.
Paul continues, pointing out:

24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Thus, we see that all suffering produces:

Hope (a theme picked up from Romans 5) and
A Dependence on the Spirit (and this is a good thing)

Thus, Paul can with no guile say:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

This suffering conforms and shapes us.  It justifies us, and it glorifies.
Finally, as Christians, we know that this life is simply preparation for God's glory. If it were not, Paul could not say

Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If death were the end, then death could separate us from the love of God.  But it doesn't.  It just brings us closer to Him in the end.


Are there any accounts of the wise men story outside of scripture? The wise men were educated and would have documented their experience in detail. Also, they would have shared the Christmas story with everyone they came in contact with on their trip home. Once they were back in their home land their story should have spread far and wide.

Outside of scripture, are there any writings telling of the wise men story? If they indeed were educated, respected, and had influence and integrity, there would be non-biblical accounts. Have any been found?

Briefly, no. But I think you're making a number of assumptions here, which are not necessarily warranted.
We have very little information about the wise men. All we hear (from Matthew) is:

Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage."
They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way.
(Matthew 2:1–2, 10–12)

We don't know where they came from, what they knew, how important they regarded Jesus to be in "the grand scheme of things", or anything else.
You assume that the wise men would have recorded their experience in detail, and shared the story with everyone they met on the way back home. I don't feel so certain of this. Mary, for example, "kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). Certainly the shepherds didn't, but we can't necessarily say whether the wise men were more like the shepherds or more like the Mother. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that they would have spread their story (they certainly wouldn't have wanted it to get back to Herod's Judea), or that others would have believed them or thought their story of any importance. We just don't have sufficient information about them or their positions to draw a conclusion like that.
All we can say for certain is that there don't appear to be any surviving eastern (e.g. Persian) accounts of the birth of a king of the Jews at that time.


Is there a Christian counterpart to practical kabbalah? Wikipedia says practical kabbalah is permitted white magic within Judaism. I know of the Old Testament injunctions against various types of sorcery, divination, etc., so this is quite a surprise to me. Is there a Christian practice that corresponds to this one?

Esoteric Christianity historically taught "theurgy" or divine magic.  Modern practitioners incorporate "Eastern" or "New Age" beliefs such as like reincarnation, inner energy, magic, astrology, etc.  I would say it shares a lot in common with Kabbalah.


Did Augustine often complain that his contemporaries burdened the church with their traditions? In Martin Luther's Table Talk we find:

  Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws.

Is this true? If so, where can it be found in Augustine's own writings?

Augustine wrote hundreds of letters to priests and bishops in the Church. Many of the letters are written in response to questions that he had received from them, some of which Augustine did not necessarily think were worth his time and effort, but were a burden to address, and provide responses to:

~I have not at my disposal sufficient leisure to enter on the refutation of his opinions one by one: my time is demanded by other
and more important work. (Augustine to Casulanus, A.D.396)
~You have sent suddenly upon me a countless multitude of questions, by which you must have purposed to blockade me on every side, or
rather bury me completely, even if you were under the impression that
I was otherwise unoccupied and at leisure; for how could I, even
though wholly at leisure, furnish the solution of so many questions to
one in such haste as you are, and, in fact, as you write, on the eve
of a journey? ... You seem to me to be prompted to mental effort night and day by no other motive than ambition to be praised by men for your industry and
acquisitions in learning. (Augustine to Dioscorus, A.D.410)

In the same letter to Casulanus quoted above, in which Casulanus asks if it is lawful to fast on the seventh day of the week (a thing forbidden by the tradition of the elders), the translators left out 6 chapters of the letter, giving this explanation:

"We have no compunction in passing over about eight columns here of
this letter, in which Augustine exposes, with a tedious minuteness and
with a waste of rhetoric, other feeble and irrelevant puerilities of
the Roman author whose work Casulanus had submitted to his review.
Instead of accompanying him into the shallow places into which he was
drawn while pursuing such an insignificant foe, let us resume the
translation at the point at which Augustine gives his own opinion
regarding the question whether it is binding on Christians to fast on
Saturday."

It's apparent in this example that Augustine didn't appreciate the Church being troubled by questions about old traditions, I imagine that there are many more and much better examples that can be gleaned from these letters.
-> A comprehensive listing of Augustines works that have been translated into english.
I've been sifting through his letters trying to find one where Augustine compares certain bishops to the letter-of-the-law Pharisees or Sadducees, but the amount of reading is rather overwhelming. I imagine that Luther may have formed his opinion while studying Augustine's discourses. It could have been from a single letter, or it could have been a conclusion he drew from several letters. It is entirely possible that there are some letters that illustrate exactly what he was quoted saying, though they may not yet be translated into English, or the specific references may have been left out because the translators considered the accusations "puerilities" or "rhetoric."


Have any Christian thinkers expressed the idea that the Trinity can be proven independently from Scripture? It is widely understood among trinitarians that the doctrine of the trinity is best seen through special revelation, particularly the scriptural accounts of the incarnation of Christ. But have there been attempts by Christians to prove the trinity particularly through philosophy? In other words, have certain Christian thinkers ever held that the trinity can be arrived at logically, independent from divine revelation in Scripture?

Anselm of Canterbury attempts to do exactly this in his Monologion, an 11th century work that attempts to logically deduce God's existence and attributes without the use of Scripture.
Overview in Proslogion
Anselm's later and better-known work, Proslogion, provides a helpful summary: after establishing the existence of God through the ontological argument (§2–3) and that God cannot be divided (§18), Anselm introduces a Father/Son relationship between God and a new entity, God's Word.  This Word shares God's attributes, like truth, and thus is not distinct from God.  A third entity, God's Love, is named the Holy Spirit, and this Love is "one and common" to God and God's Son, and equal to both.  Summarizing, he writes:

Thus, whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is altogether, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; since each singly is not other than the supremely simple unity and the supremely unified simplicity which can be neither multiplied nor differentiated. (§23)

Details in Monologion
The Son
The Monologion provides more extensive reasoning for the same basic argument as the Proslogion.  The existence and characteristics of the supreme nature are argued first, and then in chapter 29, Anselm turns to the "verbalization" of the supreme nature, "through which all things were created." He argues that the verbalization is same as the supreme nature, and that its verbalization is consubstantial with it, so that there is only one spirit, not two.
Because of the principle of simplicity, established in chapter 17, the verbalization, or Word, is one, and not many (§30).  The supreme spirit creates everything through this Word, and "whatever the supreme spirit does, its Word does too, and likewise." (§37).  The supreme spirit begets the Word, and the Word "derives from the supreme spirit" (§39), like a Father/Son relationship (§42). Nonetheless, "there are not two, but only one Creator and first principle." (§37)  But this raises the question, then: of what, exactly, are there "two"?
Anselm answers that this plurality is "ineffable," incapable of being expressed in words.  They are not like "two similar men," nor are they "two equal spirits," nor even "two equal whatevers (where 'whatever' would signify either their essence or their relation to creation)."  Finally, he concludes:

What these two things—the supreme spirit and its Word—are, is inexpressible, although they are distinguished from each other in thought by what is proper to each. (§38)

The Holy Spirit
Following Augustine (De Trinitate, IX–4), Anselm turns to a psychological analogy to describe these two entities, and associates consciousness with the Father, and understanding with the Son (§48).  But one thing is missing: just as the supreme spirit is conscious of itself, and understands itself, it must also love itself.  This love, proceeding from both the self-consciousness (Father) and the self-understanding (Son), is as great as both of them (§50–52).
Love, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son (§57).  Unlike the Word, which naturally "offers the image of its parent," Love provides no "striking likeness," so we can only say that it proceeds from Father and Son (§55).  Thus, the Father is unbegotten and begets the Son; the Son is begotten; and the Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten (§56).
These three are equal, sharing the one supreme essence, and their "mutual embrace" and "indwelling [...] demonstrates that none of them is greater than, or can exist without, the others." (§59)  Nonetheless, Anselm writes, "none of them needs the others in order to be conscious, understand and love."  Otherwise, each individual would not truly be "supreme essence and wisdom." (§60)
After a few rebuttals to objections, Anselm begins his conclusion of this portion of the argument by writing:

This seems to me to be a sublime mystery, which stretches well beyond the horizon of human understanding. [...] When investigating the inexplicable, if it is possible to arrive at an account which is certainly correct, I think one must be content with that even if it is impossible to see how it may be so. (§64)

Summary
In Anselm's preface to Monologion, he writes that he was asked by his fellow monks to make an argument not resting "on the basis of the authority of Scripture," but to use the "constraints of reason" to prove his claims.  He admits the difficulty of the task, and his own limitations, but the fact that he wrote the book the way he did indicates that he thought it profitable to argue in this manner.
Furthermore, he believes he expresses orthodox doctrine: he says he has "been unable to find anything which is inconsistent with the writings of the Catholic Fathers, and in particular with those of the Blessed Augustine."  This is a fair assessment: as mentioned, his analogy of Consciousness, Understanding, and Love originally comes from Augustine, and he is careful to emphasize both the unity and the plurality of the Trinity, thus avoiding the heresies of Sabellianism, tritheism, and Arianism.

Quotations here come from the 2008 edition of Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works in the Oxford World's Classics series.
Public domain editions of Proslogion and Monologion are widely available, but are not based on modern critical editions of Anselm's works, and thus may not closely match the quotes provided here.


If God cannot change, then why does His wrath need to be appeased? More or less I am asking for a defense of the propitiatory view of atonement in which God changes from being angry to being happy with us rather than sinners being the ones who need to change. Perhaps I misunderstand this model.

You misunderstand the model.  But it's a common misunderstanding.  One that comes up often enough that there's a standard answer from Apologetics.  Here is is in my words:

The statement that God doesn't change means that His nature doesn't change.  His Nature includes many attributes that never change:  Goodness, holiness, He is Just, Righteous, and executes Judgement.  None of these change.

His attitude toward us can and does change.  This is not only consistent with the idea that His nature never changes, it is necessary if His nature of righteousness never changes. If God is righteous, He must punish sin.  Therefore, if we are in sin, He must punish us.  If He is forgiving, then His attitude toward us must be able to change from wrath to forgiveness.

I am a parent.  I love my children.  I will always try to do what's best for them, which means I will praise them when they deserve praise, I will punish them when they deserve punishment, I will comfort them when they are hurting, and I will burn with anger if anyone hurts them.

The fact that I can be angry with them when they are naughty and please with them when they are good does not mean that I change.  I remain the same.  Who I am does not change, my nature does not change. Neither does the fact that God can be angry with us, and then forgive us means that He changes.

More on this at Apologetics Press, on the question of "Does God repent?"

Excerpt:

  For instance, during the Patriarchal Age in which they were living,
  Noah and his contemporaries had received instructions on how to live
  righteously (see 1 Peter 3:18-20), and as long as they continued in
  this manner, God’s presence and blessings would abide with them. But
  when they became sinful and unrepentant, He no longer could condone
  their actions. As a consequence of their sinful rebelliousness, God
  withdrew His spirit (Genesis 6:3), and pledged to send a flood to
  destroy all mankind except Noah and his immediate family (6:7). God
  was grieved (6:6), not because He did not know that this series of
  events would happen, or because He somehow “regretted” having created
  man in the first place, but because, having given man the choice to
  serve Him or reject Him, man had chosen the latter with such
  unanimity. When we hear God described in terms such as “sad,”
  “joyful,” etc. that frequently are used to describe human emotions, we
  must remember that such descriptions are not intended to imply that
  God is emotionally vulnerable in the same way that humans are (cf.
  Acts 17:25). Rather, such descriptions are intended to show that God
  is compassionate and loving.


What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" What is the correlation between these two scripture?
Why Jesus felt forsaken if he knew what was going on?
Why was it mentioned in Old Testament as well as New Testament(in two places)?

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You
so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1, NKJV)
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a
loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God,
My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46, NKJV)

He was quoting David in Psalm 22.  But nevertheless, Jesus must have felt these words Himself. What it was like for the Son of God to experience "Hell", or separation from God, we can not begin to imagine.

We can only speculate that Jesus, when He uttered those words, felt God had abandoned Him in a real way, not a symbolic way. Jesus truly felt separated from God, and that was far worse than even the pain and suffering on the Cross.


Who titled the poem: "The Dark Night of the Soul"? Wikipedia claims that the Catholic mystic St John of the Cross did not title his own poem: "The Dark Night of the Soul". If St John didn't title it who did?

The Wikipedia article (Dark Night of the Soul), to which Constantthin makes reference, says that the author of the poem, Saint John of the Cross, "wrote two book-length commentaries: The Ascent of Mount Carmel (Subida del Monte Carmelo), and The Dark Night (Noche Oscura)". So the first part of the title is already expressed by the author himself. As for the second part of the title (... of the Soul), Saint John of the Cross introduces the stanzas of his own poem with these words:

  Songs of the soul rejoincing at having achieved the high state of
  perfection, the Union with God, by way of spiritual negation
  (Cançiones del alma ques se goca d'auer legado al alto estado de la
  perfecçion, que es la union con Dios, por el camino de la negaçion
  espiritual)

Whoever put the two together simply did the obvious ...


Why do images of saints often depict them with unusual hand gestures? Many saints are often depicted holding a book or some other object. However, I have noticed that there are quite a few that have unusual hand gestures. Why is this?
Augustine of Hippo
Index finger, middle finger, and ring finger together, other fingers spread out

Ignatius of Antioch
Ring finger and pinky against thumb

Justin Martyr
Index finger against thumb, middle finger extended
I'm going to assume that the modern vulgar meaning for this gesture was not intended.

Cyril of Jerusalem
Index and middle fingers crossed, ring finger against thumb

John Chrysostom
Ring finger against thumb, back perspective

Wordpress:
Ancient Greek and Roman orators used an established series of hand gestures when speaking.  Since some of the oldest Orthodox statuary originated in Rome, it is likely their hand gestures were adapted from those of the Greek and Roman works when depicting religious figures to emphasize the message the painter or sculptor wished to convey.  Since orators of the time often raised their hand when speaking to assert authority, paintings and statues of Jesus and the saints might have adapted this to convey authority and a  blessing.  We see this today when the Pope blesses a crowd of the faithful.

Gesture of the Orator:
Illustrations of various hand gestures from antiquity with explanation of their meaning.

Roman & Greek sculptures:  Photos showing hand gestures.


Mary as the Queen of heaven The Pope Pius XII in the encyclical AD CAELI REGINAM recognizes Mary as the "queen of heaven", although historically she was already known that way. If the Pope knows the Bible, why not distance himself in his encyclical from the references to the "queen of heaven" found in Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44?

Because it's obvious to most people that Jeremiah 7 is referring to a false pagan deity, and not the blessed virgin Mary. To associate the two is to give credence to the idea that they are somehow related, which they obviously aren't. Highly venerating a female whom you believe God has made Queen of His Kingdom (something theoretically very possible, and easy for God; and queens and kings are venerated) is not 'cancelled' or 'forbidden' by the fact that pagans previously, or before that point,  gave the same title or honorific or role to a false deity. E.g. if pagans viewed a particular god (like Baal, which means Lord) as Lord, it doesn't mean there is not a true lord (God or man), just that pagans used the same title or honorific for their false deity—stole it, or used it wrongly. Pagans getting to 'copyright' certain dates or names for things and people or whatever else is just a ridiculous concept.

If Jeremiah wasn't speaking of the blessed virgin Mary, then it's just not relevant to discuss. And we know he wasn't because the virgin Mary didn't exist yet for another 640 years or so, but Jeremiah was speaking of something current in his day, and also of something concerning worship of a false deity, not the blessed woman Christians have always considered the greatest of the saints by virtue of being the mother of not only the Messiah, but the Messiah who was and is God, and of whom she was and is the mother to this day.

Consider an analogy. Imagine there was a pagan deity pagans called "the King of Heaven." It's almost impossible none such false deity was worshiped under this title. Does God approve of that false deity? I'd like to think so. And yet how is God still the King of Heaven? He is because He actually is, and this false deity is not.

It's very simple, really.


Is there a scriptural example of a non-believer speaking on God's behalf? EXAMPLE:

I recently read an article about Christian Mingle (CM), the most popular Christian Dating site in the world who carry the slogan "Find God's Match for You" and boldly splash Psalms 37:4 on their front page.

I wasn't all that surprised to find out that they are owned by a non-christian company, Spark*. Spark specializes in demographically geared dating sites--28 sites in all--and CM is their most popular. This is an openly non-Christian company boldly claiming to help in finding God's will for a person.

Is there a scriptural allowance for a non-christian (person or entity) to speak on behalf of God or claim to know His will?

Is there an example in scripture of a person who is clearly not a believer speaking on God's behalf? Are there scriptural teachings explicitly for or against this?

I am assuming, for the scope of this question, that the message and marketing of Christian Mingle is run and decided upon by non-Christians.

Facts and numbers are provided in the article link above.

In the book of Ezra, God speaks to the King of the Persians, who were holding the Israelites in exile:

1In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:2“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
“ ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them.

Numbers 22 tells the story of Balaam, who was a non-Israelite prophet with whom God communicated directly, although he ended up betraying his role.
In the New Testament, there are occasions in the Gospels (Mark 5:7) and in Acts (16:17) where people under the influence of spirits are able to correctly recognize Jesus and his followers.  There is also the case of Pontius Pilate's wife (Matt 27:19) who was warned in a dream not to persecute Jesus.  Finally, there is the case of the person who was casting out spirits in Jesus' name, yet without being allied with the disciples, of whom it was said "he who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:38-40)
On the other hand, there are also ample cases recorded in the Old Testament of false prophets who preached lies under the guise of religion (see Jerimiah 23), similar to the people referred to by Jesus in the New Testament who will be rejected by God despite their public displays of religiousity:

Matt 7: 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

See also the failed exorcists of Acts 19 who found that simply invoking the name of Jesus was not enough to give them the powers of faith.
It's common in modern America to see Christian iconography used as an avenue for marketing.  Which category this falls in is open to debate, although perhaps the most relevant example from scripture is either the money-changers who Jesus threw out of the temple (Matt 21:12), or Simon Magus (in Acts 8) who was cursed by the Apostles for attempting to purchase the powers of faith.


What are the major themes of Luke? Who was Luke and to whom was he addressing and what messages was he sending to the recipient/s
When and where was the book written and hat was the source of his message?

Luke was a Gentile, possibly from a Roman family, and a close companion of the Apostle Paul.  He is thought to have been a physician.  Luke also wrote the book of Acts.
The gospel of Luke was written between A.D. 58 and A.D. 60 and his target audience were Gentiles.  Luke probably wrote his account in Rome, although Achaia, Ephesus and Caesarea have also been suggested.
The major theme is Christ Jesus and Luke gives a detailed account of his public ministry up until his resurrection and ascension.  It’s a life history of the “Great Physician” who had great compassion for the outcasts of society, the weak and the under-privileged, sinners and non-Jews.  Luke emphasises the gospel message Jesus proclaimed, that “the kingdom of God is near you”.
The New International Version Study Bible has this to say about the sources Luke drew upon:

Although Luke acknowledges that many others had written of Jesus’ life (1:1), he does not indicate that he relied on these reports for his own writing.  He used personal investigation and arrangement, based on testimony from “eye-witnesses and servants of the word” (1:2) – including the preaching and oral accounts of the apostles. His language differences from the other gospels and his blocks of distinctive material indicate independent work, though he obviously used some of the same sources.

Here is a brief summary taken from an article which provides more information on Luke’s Gospel:

The Gospel of Luke begins by telling us about Jesus’ parents; the birth of His cousin, John the Baptist; Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born in a manger; and the genealogy of Christ through Mary. Jesus’ public ministry reveals His perfect compassion and forgiveness through the stories of the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus, and the Good Samaritan. While many believe in this unprejudiced love that surpasses all human limits, many others—especially the religious leaders—challenge and oppose the claims of Jesus. Christ’s followers are encouraged to count the cost of discipleship, while His enemies seek His death on the cross. Finally, Jesus is betrayed, tried, sentenced and crucified. But the grave cannot hold Him! His Resurrection assures the continuation of His ministry of seeking and saving the lost.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-Luke.html

P.S. It is possible that your question will be closed because you have not shown any evidence of research.  Please read the following articles: How to ask a good question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask
What topics are allowed: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic


Do Catholics have an obligation to attend the parish closest to their homes? So, this is something I should ask a priest, and I know there is a precept of the Church which is to provide for the needs of the church, but I'm asking here because I want to know if I have a leg to stand on in an argument with my wife, which is something priests never seem to be wont to help me with.

I live in a small town with a small parish that has one Mass once a week, it is linked (not sure if linked parishes is a universal term, but they're two parishes that share a priest and a bulletin with separate finance councils, etc...) to another parish in a town that is further away from my home than a parish in a neighboring city.

It seems like every weekend we're going to a different Mass, sometimes we go to Mass with the in-laws, sometimes we go to Mass near donuts, sometimes we go to Mass where the home-school crew all goes to Mass, very rarely do we go to Mass in our hometown and while we're still technically members, we have yet to go there this year and "pick up our envelopes".  So we're pretty stinky members and for all the priest there knows we're Lutherans now.

Is this OK, very, very bad or a grey area where circumstances can mitigate it?  Can Catholics legitimately hop around to different parishes, do they have to be members of one and go there regularly?

Do Catholics have an obligation to attend the parish closest to their homes?

The short answer is no.

  Not many Catholics know this, but your real parish is the one whose territory includes your place of residence.

  At least that is how the Code of Canon Law still sees it. But even with that built-in understanding of one’s territorial parish, canon law does not require you to register or attend Mass at the parish that is nearest to your home.

  “Lay Catholics, a lot of pastors too, think that you register in a parish and that you become a parishioner by signing up and registering with the parish. … But strictly speaking, that’s not how the Code of Canon Law treats it,” said Msgr. Jason Gray, a canon lawyer and a priest of the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois.

  “There is nothing that prohibits people from attending Mass wherever they wish to go. … Any Catholic can go to any Catholic church, satisfy their Sunday obligation, and the code really has nothing to say about that,” Msgr. Gray told Our Sunday Visitor.

  That conflicting situation reflects a reality in the modern world. People today are much more mobile than what were earlier generations of Catholics. They can drive to parishes many miles away. Unlike their predecessors, Church leaders today would be hard-pressed to require Catholics to only attend Mass at their local parishes. - Addressing the phenomenon of parish hopping

In previous centuries, bishops would require Catholics to only attend Mass in their neighborhood parishes given the difficulty of travel in the days before automobiles and mass transit.

Canon Law states the following about parish boundaries:

  Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.

Although a parish is territorial, Canon Law thus envisions some reasons for not making the closest parish an obligation to attend!

Canon Law does not state which parish or parishes we may or may not attend, even habitually.

In fact this article states that parish registrations may in fact be an American invention!


Why does the Catholic church not sanction the KJV translation? One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon.
This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?

A brief history of events leading up to the publication of the King James Authorised version of the Bible may help to explain why the Catholic Church does not sanction this translation.
Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to her son James in 1566 in Scotland. In June 1567 the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Loch Leven Castle, where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland. James was only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland, in 1567. In spite of his mother’s Catholic faith, James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian Church.  It was not until 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, that the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united and James became King James I of England, the first of the Stuart line.
King James often wrote against the power of the pope and against Catholicism’s meddling in affairs of state. In his opposition to the pope’s power, James promoted the divine right of kings—the idea that kings are accountable to God and no one else. In 1605, a group of Catholics attempted to assassinate James and his wife and son and to blow up Parliament; however, the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. That incident is remembered today as Guy Fawkes Day.
The Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians wanted a new Bible that would get as far away as possible from the structure of the Bishops’ Bible of the Anglican Church. The Bishops' Bible was an English translation of the Bible produced under the authority of the Church of England in 1568, whose bishops were offended by the Geneva Bible, the notes of which were decidedly Calvinistic in tone. The Great Bible was considered deficient because it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and so a new translation was authorized by the Anglican bishops and came to be known as the Bishops’ Bible.
The idea of a new translation of the Bible was first proposed at a religious conference in Aberdour, Fife. King James was in favour of a new translation. He didn’t care for Tyndale’s translation of Matthew 16:18, which said Christ would build His “congregation” on Peter (James much preferred “church” from ekklesia). The only other alternative at the time was the 1560s Geneva Bible, but King James objected to a “treasonable annotation” on Matthew 2:20 that suggested that kings are tyrants.

King James Version - Translation method: “The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.” Source: What is the King James Version (KJV)?

Reason 1: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England opposed the power of the Pope and claimed the divine right of Kings
Reason 2: The 1769 Oxford edition of the King James Authorised Version excluded the Apocrypha
Reason 3: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England and the 47 translators were Protestants
There may be other reasons, but those are the main ones I found when doing research into this subject a few years ago.  My sources were taken from a wide variety of historical and theological articles.


Why do people die but angels do not, but both have sinned? In City of God, Book XIII, Ch. 1, Augustine wrote,

  Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death.  For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die.  He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

It is my belief that only God is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16), being the Creator, and all else, being created, and existing by Him (Acts 17:28), is granted immortality according to His grace. Thus, angels do not die like men, for they are granted immortality. Furthermore, man's soul/ spirit, is also granted immortality according to God's grace. Hence, upon death, while man's body perishes and endures corruption, his soul/ spirit continues existence.

But, I wonder, how is it that angels who have sinned (2 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 12:9) continue to exist in an immortal state (for it is certain that Satan sinned, yet he still exists, as the biblical authors attest), yet man dies as a result of Adam's sin?

What is the explanation of this phenomenon?

Angels and humans are not of same essence.

Humans are composed of physical bodies and immortal spirits.Humans experience human death.Human death is separation of  body and spirit.

  James 2:26 (NIV)

  As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is
  dead.

On the other hand, angels are just immortal spirits without physical bodies.

  Hebrews 1:7 (NIV)

  In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels spirits, and
  his servants flames of fire."

The death that Adam and Eve experience could only be physical death (first death) and the second death ( in Gehenna i.e. Hell).

In the second death, both sinners and the devils would experience the same kind of death.

Note that the second death ( in hell) if second death for humans and first death for angels.

  Revelation

  20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death.

  20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
  and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
  tormented day and night for ever and ever.


Could Jesus save Satan? Could Jesus save Satan?

Some biblical reference with explanation, would be helpful.

The Bible reveals no provision of salvation for angelic beings, while it speaks quite a bit about the provision of salvation for mankind.  It also speaks of "the eternal fire" as a place prepared for the devil and his angels...

  Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed,
  into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Matthew
  25:41 ESV

Theologically speaking, there is no "first Adam" of the race of angels, because they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,
  but are like angels in heaven.  Matthew 22:30

So, without a "first Adam", there could be no "Second Adam", and consequently, no Savior.


According to Thomas A. Bailey what does “stark but reassuring order in the divine plan” mean? I am reading “The American Pageant” by Thomas A. Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey. Bailey has given a short introduction of Calvinism.

  Calvin argued, was all- powerful and all-good. Humans, because of the
  corrupting effect of original sin, were weak and wicked. God was also
  all-knowing—and he knew who was going to heaven and who was going to
  hell. Since the first moment of creation, some souls—the elect—had
  been destined for eternal bliss and others for eternal torment. Good
  works could not save those whom “predestination” had marked for the
  infernal fires.

  But neither could the elect count on their predetermined salvation and
  lead lives of wild, immoral abandon. For one thing, no one could be
  certain of his or her status in the heavenly ledger. Gnawing doubts
  about their eternal fate plagued Calvinists. They constantly sought,
  in themselves and others, signs of “conversion,” or the receipt of
  God’s free gift of saving grace. Conversion was thought to be an
  intense, identifiable personal experience in which God revealed to the
  elect their heavenly destiny. Thereafter they were expected to lead
  “sanctified” lives, demonstrating by their holy behavior that they
  were among the “visible saints.”

  These doctrines swept into England just as King Henry VIII was
  breaking his ties with the Roman Catholic Church in the 1530s, making
  himself the head of the Church of England. Henry would have been
  content to retain Roman rituals and creeds, but his action powerfully
  stimulated some English religious reformers to undertake a total
  purification of English Christianity. Many of these “Puritans,” as it
  happened, came from the commercially depressed woolen districts (see
  p. 28). Calvinism, with its message of stark but reassuring order in
  the divine plan, fed on this social unrest and provided spiritual
  comfort to the economically disadvantaged.

Well, "the American pageant" is an American high school history textbook. I am teaching this book to my students. The quote is from chapter 3 under the section title "The Protestant Reformation Produces Puritanism". The whole chapter can be read here. https://wchs.pasco.k12.fl.us/wp-content/uploads/wchs/2012/05/American-Pageant-CH-3.pdf

I need help interpreting the part in bold. I think "divine plan" means “predestination”.But what does "order" mean here?

First thing we need to establish is what the Divine Plan is.  Predestination is certainly part of it but it also has to do with redemption and salvation. “In him [Christ Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).  Here is a brief Reformed Protestant view:

Salvation is entirely the work of God and since the plan of salvation was conceived before Adam and Eve were created, then it is entirely proper to conclude that there is divine order at work.  The Bible demonstrates God’s sovereignty and shows that nothing happens that God does not ordain, cause, or allow.  The Creator God is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33) but is a God of order.

First, within the Godhead, the divine plan of salvation is agreed.  Second, the divine plan is executed when Christ Jesus willingly gave up his life in order to atone for the sins of the world.  Third, the divine plan is to this day seeing fulfilment in the lives of believers who have come to saving faith through the good office of the Holy Spirit.  Nothing was left to chance.  Everything necessary was planned in advance and all three parties were in agreement.  And because God is Sovereign and Omnipotent, and because Christ Jesus was resurrected from the dead (as part of that divine plan), then the outcome is assured.

That’s the good news.  That’s the reassuring part of the divine plan.  The bad news (the stark reality) is that those who reject the means by which salvation can be granted are also part of the divine plan.  They are deemed to be eternally lost – which is the opposite of being eternally saved.

The article in the link below has this to say about Calvin’s third book - The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ. The Benefits It Confers and the Effects Resulting from It:

  God’s predestination is sovereign and independent of foreknowledge, and His election is eternal. Men’s claim that predestination is unfair merely exposes their inability to understand God. All those who are predestined will be called by God and will have faith. The final resurrection will be physical for both the elect and the reprobate. Hell is real and eternal.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Calvin.html

It’s not so much Calvin’s “message of stark but reassuring order in the divine plan” as it is God’s message to humanity regarding the stark consequences of rejecting the divine plan of salvation.  That the divine plan of salvation is ordered by God is plain to see from what the Bible tells us about the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, who gave up the glory he shared in heaven in order to dwell with us and to do the will of the Father who had sent him.


Is it permissible for a Catholic to pray the Salat? I'm thinking of visiting a mosque on Wednesday. I've done this before a couple of years ago and it was a very valuable experience. The last time I visited I joined in the Salat and thought it was a great way to pray.

I've since wondered whether it is actually ok to pray the Salat. I don't think there is anything heretical about the movements; I find them quite beautiful and I believe that they are worshipping the true God. However I have reservations about the fact that the Salat is prayed towards the Kaabah in Mecca.

If it was prayed towards a tabernacle, a Eucharistic host, liturgical east, or no particular direction at all then I wouldn't have any problems with it. But because it is prayed towards a stone box in Saudi Arabia I worry that the whole thing might be a form of idolatry.

What is the Catholic view of this situation? Two main questions:

Is it permissible to pray the Salat while facing Mecca?
Is it permissible to pray the Salat while facing a Eucharistic host, a tabernacle, liturgical east, or nowhere in particular?

Note that for the purposes of this question I'm considering Allah and Yahweh to be the same God, as per dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and the CCC paragraph 841. Any answer which disagrees is out of scope and will be downvoted

No, it is forbidden for Catholics to engage in communicatio in sacris (joining others in false worship, e.g., worshipping Islam's false god Allah, who is not the Holy Trinity):

  1917 Canon 1258 §1 It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.

cf. Dom Augustine's A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law on '17 Can. 1258

This law is expressed in the 1983 code, in the section "Delicts against religion and the unity of the Church," as:

  1983 Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

cf. this commentary on '83 Can. 1365


Was Jesus command to watch in Matthew 26 just for that night or was it a general caution for the Church? Jesus charged his disciples to watch and pray in Matthew Chapter 26, and in earlier reading it seemed to me that he was probably referring to the events of that night.
In my more recent studies the statement in verse 41 "That ye not enter into temptation" caused me to wonder if he might not be giving a continuing instruction to watch for the temptations of Satan because he knew that after his death and resurrection, that Satan would then concentrate on the church.
Matthew 26:38 through 41  NRKJV

38  Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40  And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41  Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

In the context of this passage, I would consider it Risky Exegesis™ to apply it to people beyond who the speaker intended (based on what he says). In this case, he is speaking "to the disciples." I take that to mean meaning the three that went with him farther in: Peter, James and John. The text seems to indicate the objects of his speaking, and so redirecting the statement to new objects is the point at which I would be very cautious.

If you want a command from the Lord about prayer and temptation, the Lord's Prayer would probably suffice:

  Matthew 6:9-13 KJV  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

This command has no limitations on audience or duration, and I read this section (the Sermon on the Mount) as applying to all Jesus' followers, henceforward throughout time.

An related question of interest might be, "How can I know if a Biblical mandate applies?" I see a number of people choose commands from the Bible (that they like, presumably) and say that those things apply to them, even though I cannot (personally) make build a logical case to support the idea.


The Eunuch being converted by Phillip? There is a passage in the Bible talks about an eunuch traveling on the road and reading from Isaiah. The Phillip saw him, talked to him, and baptized him. Which passage is it? Is that passage enough to prove that repentance, faith, and therefore salvation is not necessarily followed by an emotional experience, but it is as decision to follow Christ? Especially if one has grown up in the church and taught to obey the 10 commandments anyway? Also, do we have an account of Timothy's (or someone else who grew up in the church) salvation?  Thanks.

Actually, notice that after being baptised, the eunuch went on his way rejoicing, which is an expression of joy, which some would call an emotional experience. Whether or not it is, it flies in the face of the suggestion that obedience to God and joy are unconnected. There are many scriptures which underline the link between joy and righteouness. Here are 2:

  You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
  Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
  With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
  (Hebrews 1.9)

  If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
  “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.
  (John 15,10+11)


Is it moral or immoral for Satan to punish souls for immoral acts? Satan, to my understanding, punishes souls in hell as a result of their immoral acts on earth.  It also is my understanding that the concept of Satan represents pure immorality (evil).

Does that mean it is immoral to punish souls in hell or is it actually moral?

In Dante's Inferno, that may have been the case, however, in the Bible, that is absolutely not the case.  Satan was never given dominion over hell.  In fact, Revelation 19 and 20 tells us Satan will be bound and thrown into the Abyss for 1000 years.  After his release, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Death, the Grave, the Beast and the False Prophet to burn forever.  Satan receives eternal punishment for his actions according to the Bible.  Aside from 14th Century literature, he never gets to take his revenge out on anyone.  In other words, Satan does not ever punish any souls for immoral acts according to the Bible.

As for the morality of "punishing" someone in Hell, I would contest that as well.  I would say a person who rejects God has chosen Hell over Heaven and God forcing a person who wanted nothing to do with Him in life to spend eternity with Him in a relationship they didn't want is tantamount to kidnapping.  Think Jayce Dugard.  That would be the truly immoral thing to do.


According to Preterism why wasn't Capernaum destroyed? Matthew predicted the untimely demise of Capernaum because they ignored Jesus' many miracles in their midst:

[Mat 11:20-24 ESV] (20) Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. (21) "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. (23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (24) But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

But according to Wikipedia, despite an earthquake in 749 Capernaum stood another millenium:

Capernaum (/kəˈpɜːrniəm, -neɪəm/ kə-PUR-nee-əm, -nay-əm;[1] Hebrew: כְּפַר נַחוּם, translit. Kfar Naḥūm, lit. 'Nahum's village'; Arabic: كفر ناحوم, translit. Kafr Nāḥūm) was a fishing village established during the time of the Hasmoneans, located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee.[2] It had a population of about 1,500.[3] Archaeological excavations have revealed two ancient synagogues built one over the other.[citation needed] A house turned into a church by the Byzantines is said to be the home of Saint Peter.
Capernaum's 4th-century synagogue (detail with columns and benches)
The village was inhabited continuously from the 2nd century BC to the 11th century AD, when it was abandoned sometime before the Crusader conquest.[4] This includes the re-establishment of the village during the Early Islamic period soon after the 749 earthquake.[4]"

Why was Capernaum not destroyed?
NOTE:
There are two other city names in the Matthew passage. I don't know their fate.

In my research I found this excellent article by Zeev Goldmann who argues that the famed synagogue that was unearthed and the ruins beneath it indicate that the city did in fact repent and turn to Christ:

http://zeevgoldmann.blogspot.com/2008/08/vi-capernaum-synagogue.html

So this is a case similar to that of Jonah, where he predicted the imminent destruction of Ninevah but they were spared when they repented.


How did Jesus reconcile his teachings with Judaism? The Gospels tell us that Jesus was a Jew.
Yet Jesus revealed that he was the Son of God.

It seems to me that Jesus' contemporaries must have been forced to decide if his teachings were either:

Extensions of or updates to Judaism.
Or things that were so transformative/disruptive that they were suggestive of a new religion and a new interpretation (perhaps to the point of being heretical).

My Question:
- Did Jesus bother to reconcile his teachings with Judaism? And if so, how?

Clearly Jesus described himself as being within Judaism and not opposing or superceding it. Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

Perhaps the easy answer to your question is to turn it around: What did Jesus ever do or say that contradicted the Hebrew scriptures? What did he say that needed to be reconciled? He never said that he was abolishing Judaism. He never said anything that contradicted anything in the Hebrew scriptures. He routinely quoted scripture to back up his statements, and as I quoted above, he affirmed the scriptures.

Yes, he claimed to be the Messiah and God made flesh, and if that was not true , he was the worst of blasphemers. But if it was true, then he was fulfilling the scriptures.


How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho? Wikipedia explains three archaeological studies of the Jericho site, and concludes that the city was abandoned at the time the supposed Biblical battle took place.

How do Christians reconcile the Biblical account with this science?

The consensus of modern scholarship is well described in the wikipedia article to which the question refers.  Most scholars are committed to a view that the Old Testament for the most part contains myth possibly to bolster/justify Jewish claims on the land of Israel.  Many are also committed to the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis or similar derivatives.

It would not be welcome to many to discover that there is evidence that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down just as the Bible says and in a year which substantiates the conquest of the land of Israel harmonizing with scriptural testimony.

The testimony of radio carbon dating: Fall of Jericho, about 1550 BC

Before continuing, I must acknowedge that the carbon dating does not at first appear to corroborate the date of the Fall of Jericho presented here: most scholars take these carbon dates at face value and assert that Jericho was destroyed about 1550 BC.  However, it is not the only time that carbon dating has come up with an answer that is doubted by archaeologists.  The evidence of the carbon dating must be weighed against other evidence: in the view of archaeologist Dr Bryant Wood dating middle eastern sites by means of pottery evidence trumps carbon dating methods.  Furthermore the carbon dating method relies on callibration using tree ring data in order to produce absolute year values: it is the assumptions made in the callibration, and the poor quality of the underlying tree-ring data which are disputed:-

  The LB I [Late Bronze Age I] dating has received much opposition from skeptical archaeologists, who insist on dating the pottery at Jericho City IV to Middle Bronze, about 120 years earlier, and who also appeal to radiocarbon dating that is consistent with that estimate. Bryant’s present work is therefore significant in refuting that viewpoint. Support for Bryant’s LB I date comes from the finds at Avaris in Egypt’s Delta, where LB I pottery from the 15th century BC is similar to that found at Jericho City IV. Further, radiocarbon dating for this same area and time of Egypt is about 120 to 170 years too high, the same amount of offset for radiocarbon results from Jericho [emboldening is mine, AS]. These too-early radiocarbon dates for Egypt and other areas of the Mediterranean in the period 1400 BC and earlier have led to a conflict between “science” and what had been accepted as firmly established archaeological dates. Critics of the radiocarbon dates have argued that they are too early, not because of wrong measurements of the 14C/12C ratios, but because of the very dubious, and poorly documented, matching of tree-ring data that provides the adjustments that are used to derive absolute (BC) dates from carbon ratios. In this ongoing debate, those who proclaim that “science” has disproved the Bible account of Jericho have never themselves investigated all the steps that go into establishing the “scientific” dates, but instead direct skepticism only at the Bible.  (Rodger Young, See http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/Wood.html)

So, doubts concerning the dates provided by radio carbon dating are not confined within the heads of narrow-minded, pea-brained, Bible fundamentalists, nor confined to issues relating only to Bible events.  Manfred Bietak, distinguished Egyptologist and archaeologist, but not a Bible believer as far as I know, argues that the radiocarbon date of 1600 BC or so for the Thera Eruption is about 150 to 170 years too early.  The Egyptian archaeological evidence that Manfred Bietak uses to argue this is hard to deny.  The radiocarbon date for the Fall of Jericho is 1550: reducing it by the same value gives a date for the Fall of Jericho of 1400 to 1380, precisely the date to vindicate the Bible account.

In short, once it is recognised that the radiocarbon dating methodology is consistently producing results which are wrong by ~150 years then the radiocarbon dating results for Jericho are no longer vindicating Kathleen Kenyon's date of 1550 BC, but rather confirming a date of 1400 BC.
For further reading see:-
http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/radiocarbontalk.pdf

Biblical and extra-Biblical testimony for the year of the Fall of Jericho.

  In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the Lord was upon me, and brought me thither.  (Ezekiel 40:1, KJV)

You will notice that it says "in the selfsame day" or "on that very day" and yet in the English translation it hasn't yet mentioned any day at all. What it has said is "in the beginning of the year".  The Hebrew that has been translated "in the beginning of the year" is "Rosh Hashanah".  Now the phrase "Rosh Hashanah" appears no where else in the Old Testament.  But in the Old Testament there was the Feast of Trumpets, and it was the first day of the month beginning the agricultural year which is the 7th month (Tishri), starting after the bringing in of the harvest of summer fruits of figs, sycamore figs pomegranites and especially the grape harvest.  (Lev 23:23-25).  The month of Tishri is in about September.  After the exile the Feast of Trumpets on the first of Tishri, became known as Rosh Hashanah, New Year's Day.  But Rosh Hashanah is not always at the New Moon, the first day, of the 7th lunar month.  In Ezekiel 40:1 Rosh Hashanah is said to have fallen on the tenth day of the month, that is on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27), and this only happened once every 49 years in the Year of Jubilee.  In the year of Jubilee the Feast of Trumpets (which became Rosh Hashanah) was held on the tenth day of Tishri (Leviticus 25:9).

  Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.  (Leviticus 25:9)

Now the point is that the Talmud says that the Year of Jubilee noted in Ezekiel 40 verse 1 was the seventeenth Jubilee.  The Seder Olam written in the first century draws attention to this and finds it to be deeply mysterious because the Jewish author of the Seder Olam cannot reconcile this with the lengths of the Hebrew kings in Scripture.   (It wasn't until the doctoral thesis of Edwin Thiele in the 1940s that the lengths of the reigns of the Hebrew kings could begin to be understood.)

A Year of Jubilee happened every 49 years and so 17 Jubilees covers 833 years.  And the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles first began with the year of entry into the Promised Land (Lev 25:2), which is the same as the year of the Fall of Jericho.  The year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was either 587 BC or 586 BC and 14 years after this is 573 or 572 BC. So the year mentioned in Ezekiel 40:1 was the 14th after, which was in either 573 or 572, and the Fall of Jericho was consequently either (573 + 833 =) 1406 BC or 1405 BC.  Rodger C Young insists that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587 BC and so the Fall of Jericho was in 1406 BC.  (See "The Talmud's Two Jubilees and their relevance to the date of the Exodus" - http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jubilee.pdf and "When did Jerusalem fall?" - http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf ).

Another means of calculation uses Edwin Theile's calculations for the years of the Hebrew kings.  He places the beginning of the reign of Solomon in 971 BC and his fourth year at 968/967 BC. The Bible gives a link from this date to the date of the Exodus:

  And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.  (1 Kings 6:1)  (See also Judges 11:26)

So subtracting 479 years from 967 gives the year of the Exodus from Egypt of 1446 BC. And 40 years in the wilderness gives the year of the Fall of Jericho as 1406 BC, precisely the same year, with no tricks, and no circular reasoning.  As Rodger C. Young argues this perfect agreement by these two completely different methods puts a serious hole under the water of the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis and all that modern scholarship which follows Wellhausen (www.rcyoung.org).

The testimony of the Amarna Letters, and the High Chronology and the Low Chronology of the 18th dynasty

Turning to the Amarna letters, it may not be wise to try to either verify or discredit the Biblical account of the Battle of Jericho by an appeal to the dates of the Amarna letters.  El Amarna was the capital city of Egypt for a very limited period during the 18th dynasty of Egypt and was abandoned in the second year of Tutankhamun.  At Amarna were discovered the Royal Archive containing letters from all over the Levant.  Some of these letters are appeals to the Egyptian pharaoh for help because Canaan is being overrun by "the Habiru". The question is were "the Habiru" the Hebrews?

The 18th dynasty ended about 1300 BCE.  I have in front of me pages 310 and 311 of "The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", edited and compiled by the distinguished Egyptologists Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson.  [A fabulous book for those interested in Egyptian history, but buy the second edition because it contains corrections to minor mistakes found in the first.] Those pages contain a chronology of ancient Egypt, and at the head of the chronology it says

  " All dates before 690 BC are approximate".

But in case you think that a cop out, I shall argue that the dates of the Amarna letters, on minimal conservative assumptions, could fit perfectly with a date of Fall of Jericho of 1406 BC.   The city of El Amarna is most closely associated with the Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) who is usually said to have reigned from about 1352 to 1336.  However those are not the only possible dates: those dates are using what is known as the "Low Chronology" for the 18th Dynasty.  There is also the "High Chronology" which puts the dates 25 years earlier.

The difference in the two chronologies is all down to a recorded observation of a "heliacal rising" of the Sothis/the Dog Star/Sirius, for which the year is given according to one of the 18th dynasty pharaohs.  Unfortunately the record does not say from which city the observation was made: was it observed at Memphis or at Thebes?  The difference makes a 25 year difference in the chronology of the 18th dynasty.  So Akhenaten might have reigned not from 1352 to 1336 but rather from 1377 to 1361 BC.

As I said Amarna is mostly associated with Akhenaten; but actually some of the Amarna letters are known to have been sent to his predecessor, Amenhotep III, who according to the Low Chronology reigned from 1390 to 1352, but according to the High Chronology reigned from 1415 to 1377 BC.

(There is a known synchronism between the reign of Akhenaten and Ashur-uballit I, who reigned 1365-1330 BC.  Both the High and Low Chronologies allow for this synchronism.)

In short, we cannot tell which pharaoh most of the letters were written to.  Before about 1000 BC it was ancient Egyptian convention to refer to the pharaoh simply as "pharaoh" without specifying the name of the pharaoh.  (This convention is followed in Scripture; after 1000 bc scripture still follows the later Egytian convention of naming the pharaoh.) We are fortunate that in the case of the Amarna letters the name of the pharaoh is known in some cases. Thus it is quite reasonable to argue that the relevant Amarna letters from Canaan without the pharaoh's name were written to Amenhotep III at some time between 1415 and 1377, which fits perfectly with the time of the conquest of the "Promised Land", starting 1406 BC with the Fall of Jericho.

The High Chronology, by the way, fits far better with the life of Moses and the period of the Exodus.  For example, Moses fled from pharaoh when he was 40 years old (Acts 7:23) and was 40 years in Sinai (Acts 7:30) when he was told that the men who were wanting to kill him were all dead (Exodus 4:19).  There are only two pharaohs throughout the 18th and 19th dynasties whose reign lasted longer than 40 years: Thutmose III (1504-1450 BC, High Chron.) and Rameses II (1279-1213 BC, according to Shaw & Nicholson; or 1290-1224 BC according to Douglas Petrovich, see file:///C:/Users/USER%2001/Downloads/Chronology_of_Egyptian_Dynasties_12_18_1.pdf ). Seeing that Exodus 4:19 must include the Pharaoh himself then it fits perfectly with the High Chron. but not the Low Chron. In the Low Chronology Thutmose III died in 1425 BC, which is after the Exodus, 1446 BC, and obviously according to Exodus 4:19 the pharaoh who wanted to kill Moses for 40 years must have died before the Exodus.  Also, when Aaron was born 1529 there had been no order to kill the baby boys, but by the time Moses was born 1526 BC a decree had been passed.  Thutmose I became pharaoh during 1529 (High Chron.) suggesting this change of policy was his soon after he became pharaoh.

The evidence of the scarabs found at Jericho

Scarab amulets are named after beetles because of the similar shape.   They began to be used in Egypt but their use spread to other areas including the Levant.  Individuals used them for various reasons, sometimes for making seal impressions for legal documents and trade documents as the equivalent of signatures.  Immediately prior to the conquest of the Promised Land by the Israelites the city kings of the Levant pledged allegiance to Egypt.  This was because the area had been conquered by Thutmose III.  (He fully established the area as part of the Egyptian Empire by his victory over the Prince of Qadesh and his Mitannian allies at the Battle of Megiddo, 15th May, 1482 BC (High Chron.) (according to Richard A. Parker).)  Because of this the scarabs of the Levant bore not only the name of the owner, but also the name of an Egyptian pharaoh, from which it seems possible to arrive at a date for when a city was occupied.  For these reasons scarabs are precious discoveries to archaeologists.

The reigns of the pharaohs using the High Chronology are thus:-

18th Dynasty

Ahmose - 1575-1550 - 25 years (length of reign)

Amenhotep I - 1550-1529 - 21 years

Thutmose I - 1529-1517 - 12 years

Thutmose II - 1517-1504 - 13 years

Thutmose III - 1504-1450 - 54 years

Hatshepsut - 1498-1483 (a co-regency with Thutmose III) - 15 years

Amenhotep II - 1452-1425 (brief co-regency with Thutmose III) - 27 years

Thutmose IV - 1425-1415 - 10 years

Amenhotep III - 1415-1377 - 38 years

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) - 1377-1361 - 16 years

Nefernefruaten - 1363-1361 (another co-regency) - 2 years

Tutankhamun - 1361-1352 - 9 years

Ay - 1352-1348 - 4 years

Horemheb - 1348-1320 - 28 years

19th dynasty

Rameses I - 1306-1305 - 1 year

Sety I - 1305-1290 - 15 years

Rameses II - 1290-1224 - 66 years

Merenptah - 1224-1214 - 10 years

There have been a number of scarabs found at Jericho which relate to the time of the fall of the walls and destruction of the city.  Scarabs have been found containing the names Thutmose III, Hatshepsut, Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III.  There have been no scarabs found after the reign of Amenhotep III at Jericho.

This is powerful evidence for a date of the Fall of Jericho during the reign of Amenhotep III, 1415-1377.

Other Archaeological Discoveries

I only want ot look two pieces of evidence as discovered by three archaeologists, John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon and Bryant Wood: pottery dating, and those full jars of grain.

Pottery Dating

John Garstang investigated Jericho in the period 1930-36.  He found evidence that the walls of Jericho had fallen down dramatically. And from his examination of the pottery he declared that the fall of Jericho happened about 1400 BC, confirming a literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1.

Kathleen Kenyon investigated from 1952-58. She agreed the walls had come dramatically tumbling down.  But she claimed that the pottery did not confirm the date of 1400 BC or any where near it.

Both these two archaeologists very kindly (?) sent their pottery finds to museums and other instiitutions supporting their digs all over the world.

Bryant Wood studied pottery for several years and his doctoral thesis was in Middle Eastern late bronze age pottery, precisely the skill needed to date the Fall of Jericho. He then decided he would re-examine the pottery finds and other finds of both John Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon and examine their methodology.  So for many years off he went on his holidays on planes all over Europe and the States to all the museums, etc.  He examined every single piece of pottery from both digs.  What he found was a big surprise.  He found he agreed with the methodology and conclusions of John Garstang but neither the methodology nor the conclusions of Kathleen Kenyon.  Kenyon based her date of the fall of Jericho not on what pottery she had found but on what she had not found .. a highly dubious methodology. She was looking for a very expensive Cypriot pottery which is a key indicator for the period and when she did not find it she decided that Jericho could not have fallen during that time period.

According to Bryant Wood she made two big blunders:

Her archaeological dig was in the poor sector of ancient Jericho as identified by the houses being close together.  You shouldn't expect to find expensive pottery in a poor neighbourhood.
She should have realized that the pottery she had found was actually a poor man's imitation of the expensive Cypriot pottery!  So actually what she found was not against the date of the late 1400s BC but confirmation!  According to Bryant Wood, Kathleen Kenyon should have realized she had found confirmation that Jericho fell in agreement with the date arrived at using 1 Kings 6:1 (as described above).

Full Jars of Grain

Bryant Wood, in examining the notes of both archaeological digs found another important discovery.  Both John Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon in their respective digs had found something which is very rarely found in archaeological digs.  They both had dutifully recorded it, but its significance had clearly not struck them.

We need to remember what the Bible says: they came to Jericho after the flax harvest, in the Spring, having celebrated Passover at Gilgal (Joshua 5:10).  They went round the city for a week and the walls came tumbling down.  They then killed all (except Rahab and family); they did not take anything of value, such as food, etc, (except for one act of disobedience by Achan); and they then set the city on fire.

This is in great contrast to a normal siege of a city with strong walls: normally the city would be laid siege to for months until the food had run out; then it would be conquered and anything of value would be taken.

What the notes of the archaeological digs recorded was that they had found many houses with a room containing jars of grain. The jars were full, and the grain had been damaged by the fire. (See Bryant Wood's lecture below, 47:50 minutes).

These full jars demonstrate that:

Firstly, the conquest was soon after the grain harvest agreeing with the Bible's account of the flax on the roof and the Passover celebration (Joshua 2:6; 5:10); second, when Jericho was conquered the food had not run low, so clearly the city had not been put under siege for several months, again agreeing with the Bible account of a seven day "siege" (Joshua 6:4); thirdly, after the city defences were breached the city was not plundered, the jars full of grain would have been well worth taking away before burning the city, but in this case the full jars of grain were left - again this agrees with the Bible which says the whole city and everything in it was cursed (except Rahab and her family; and the gold, silver, bronze and iron were for the treasury of the LORD) (Joshua 6:17-19; 7:1); and finally the city had been burned just as the Bible says (Joshua 6:24).

The unusual discovery of these jars full of grain significantly ties in with the Biblical account.

The Walls which came tumbling down

Archaeology has discovered there were three walls surrounding Jericho which is on a hill, the inner wall which was mud brick; an outer wall which was also mud brick; and then almost immediately under this outer mud brick wall was a solid stone retaining wall which was there to prevent the ground under the outer mudbrick wall from collapsing outwards.

This stone brick retaining wall is still there in places and is about 18 feet high; it did not collapse: what happened was that the (estimated) 20 ft high, 6ft wide mud brick wall above it collapsed and the mud, etc, fell in front of the retaining wall conveniently providing a reasonable gradient for the Israelites to scale and get over the 18ft retaining wall.

It would not make much sense to build the mud brick wall first and then later build the retaining wall.  Surely the retaining wall would have been built first to help prevent the weight of the mud brick wall from causing the ground underneath to collapse outward; only after the construction of the retaining wall would they have felt confident to build the mud brick wall slightly further up the hill on which Jericho is sited.

Kathleen Kenyon agreed that there had been a mud brick wall and that it had come dramatically tumbling down; she agreed that the mud bricks fell and gathered up immediately in front of the retaining wall - she could hardly do otherwise, there was the evidence of the remains of the mud brick plainly to see; but she had said that the walls had come down about 1550 BC, 150 years before the date needed for the Bible to be true.  She based this on the absence of the Cypriot pottery, as has been said already.

Archaeological excavations by an Italian-Palestinian joint collaborative expedition from the University of Rome, starting in 1997, found evidence that the retaining wall had not even been built by 1550 BC: it was finished about 1500 BC! For the date that Kathleen Kenyon says the wall came tumbling down, there almost certainly was no mud brick wall to fall.  For more about this see the 52 minute lecture, starting from 24:50 minutes; and http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2014/03/tell-es-sultan-a-pilot-project-for-archaeology-in-palestine/

THANK YOU FOR READING THIS FAR.

For more information see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Fjth9T12U - a 55 minute documentary (for more about the grain discovery start at 27:20 minutes)

and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNjhnTe4B0 - a 52 minutes lecture by Dr Bryant Wood.

For more on the interface between archaeology and the Bible for this period of Biblical history see Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?


What books did Calvin consider canonical? Sometimes it seems that much is made of Calvin's collections of commentaries and sermons not including certain books  that are in the Protestant canon (Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation) or that he seemed to quote Baruch as Scripture.

Did Calvin anywhere give a list of accepted and rejected books of Scripture?

We have several pieces of evidence to say that Calvin affirmed the 66-book canon that has become known as the Protestant canon and rejected all other books as canonical.

The first piece of evidence is the 1559 French Confession of Faith, which he co-authored with De Chandieu. In article 3 of the confession, the 66 books are all named as "canonical" books of "the Holy Scriptures." In article 4 it says that "we can not found any articles of faith" upon "other ecclesiastical books."

Calvin names these "ecclesiastical books" in his 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent:

  It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.

You may note that he mentions here every deuterocanonical book other than Baruch.

The next piece of evidence is the Geneva Bible, a 1560 English translation. David Hall makes the case that Calvin approved of the Geneva Bible:

  Several things illustrate Calvin's imprimatur on this version. First, he used it in his own preaching; secondly, some of his closest disciples were involved in its translation; thirdly, publishings in Geneva at the time were approved by a committee of the Genevan Consistory, heavily populated by Calvin adherents; and fourthly, just prior to its publication, the church of Geneva requested that Calvin and Theodore Beza confirm William Whttingham’s NT translation. Without a doubt, Calvin approved of this 1560 translation.

In the table of contents of the 1560 edition, the deuterocanon (including Baruch) is in an "Apocrypha" section, and the Old and New Testaments include only the 66 books that Calvin affirmed in the 1559 French Confession (though the Prayer of Manasseh is listed with the Old Testament books with a note that it is apocryphal.)

Similarly, article 4 of the Belgic Confession lists the 66-book canon of Scripture, and article 6 enumerates the Apocrypha, including Baruch. Calvin wrote in a letter that he and the brothers of Geneva "heartily approve" of the Belgic Confession, which was written by a student of his, but wish it didn't attribute Hebrews to Paul. (A discussion of this letter is found in pages 67-70 of Nicolaas Gootjes' book The Belgic Confession, and the full text of the original is found in an appendix to the same.)

So to sum up, the evidence is as follows: Calvin's own French Confession of Faith, along with the Belgic Confession which his student wrote and he accepted, and the Geneva Bible which he also approved, names only the 66-book Protestant canon as canonical. And the Belgic Confession and Geneva Bible both explicitly regard each deuterocanonical book as non-canonical.

As for Baruch in particular, the webpage linked in the question gives examples of citations that are all from the 1530s -- though Calvin also calls Baruch a prophet in his 1546 commentary on 1 Corinthians -- which means he may have changed his mind between then and 1559 (possibly after 1547, since he doesn't mention Baruch in the Antidote to Trent). But an alternative would be that he's simply calling Baruch a prophet to give a common attribution that would be recognizable to his readers. This view makes more sense to me, given that a few of the passages mentioned by that webpage have Calvin saying, "Or whoever was the author." It seems he was simply adding weight to his arguments by quoting from an ancient Jewish writer.


Does the Bible contain a definitive explanation of morality? Does the Bible contain a definitive explanation of morality? Or does it leave room for interpretation on the matter of what is moral and what is immoral?  Perhaps it depends on the tradition?

All language, whether written or spoken, whether miraculously inscribed on stone tablets, breathed in fire letters on the sky, inspired by God through a human vessel or scribbled to your friend on Facebook—due to the fundamental nature of language as a means of communication—requires interpretation. Interpretation is an inseparable part of communication.

Most branches of Christianity (as in the vast majority) believe God has provided in the Bible a clear basis—fundamental guidelines as you will—for morality. It defines what makes something moral vs. immoral and provides concrete examples.

The doctrine in question here that I assume is what you actually mean to question is officially known as the Perspicuity of Scripture. The degree to which different doctrinal traditions believe the Scripture to be clear (as in plain to the ordinary reader) varies some with some traditions believing it to need more contextualization. However on the issue of basic morality the weight of extant  teachings is clearly towards the end of believing it to be spelled out clearly.

You will find this issue covered specifically in the statement of faith of most groups.

What follows is one example of that. While the Westminster Confession of Faith as a whole is only officially representative of a limited subset of Protestants, you will find at least on these two points it is generally representative of many groups. At the very least this point (whether doctrinally the same or different) turns up in similar statements for most groups.

For example on the general nature of Scripture being clear (not needing scholarly interpretation beyond the ordinary understanding of language) it  has this to say:

  WCF, Chapter 1

  VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His
  own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
  down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
  from Scripture […]

  VII. All things in Scripture are not alike
  plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which
  are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so
  clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other,
  that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
  ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

On the issue of morality, it notes that the fundamental rules governing morality are outlined in the Ten commandments (this idea is expressed in various ways but generally held across most theological traditions).

(Emphasis mine to note the thread relevant to this question in a longer excerpt.)

  WCF, Chapter 19

  I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound
  him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual
  obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death
  upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep
  it.

  II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of
  righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in
  ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four
  commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our
  duty to man.

  III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give
  to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, […]

  […]

  V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as
  others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of
  the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of
  God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel,
  any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

  VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of
  works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great
  use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life
  informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and
  binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful
  pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining
  themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of,
  humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer
  sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His
  obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain
  their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of
  it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions,
  in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse
  thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner,
  show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may
  expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them
  by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and
  refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters
  from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not
  under grace.


What was God's goal in creating life? I am agnostic and rationalist and I spend quite a lot of time reading the arguments of tenants of intelligent design (but rarely interacting with them). Regularly, one of these tenants claims something like "there should be a reason/cause for us to exist" or "life must be hard/meaningless without a purpose/goal".

I disagree with that statement, but it made me wonder:

What was God's purpose, according to the Bible, to create life?

I got that, once life is created, God, being a benevolent deity, wish for us to live a good life according to his Word, in order to go to Heaven and enjoy eternal happy life (in opposition to an eternity of torments in Hell).

But, why creating life in the first place? In opposition to not creating anything or creating a universe with no life (a clockmaker is satisfied with the mechanisms he created, even though they don't bear life).

Boredom? Curiosity? Because he simply could?

Is there anything about his intent in the creation in the Bible, or, is it claimed to be beyond our understanding?

It isn't entirely clear whether you're asking what is the purpose of all Creation or just of human life.  Either way, the fundamental answer is the same: for His glory.

Isaiah 43:7

  Everyone who is called by My name, whom I have created for My glory

Psalm 19:1

  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His
  handiwork.

Romans 1:20

  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
  eternal power and Godhead...

Isaiah 45:18

  For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who
  formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not
  create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited...

Putting all of the above pieces together, all of Creation was made to bring glory to God, but more specifically, man was created to appreciate the glory of God, and the Earth to enable the creation of mankind.