Do Pentecostals include the Old Testament in their Bible? Or do they only follow the New Testament? I have a church near my home, and it's called the New Testament church. So, just wondering if their Bible doesn't have the Old Testament.

As per my previous comment, to the best of my knowledge, all Pentecostal denominations use the regular Protestant canon which includes the 39 books that are frequently thought of as the Old Testament. This excludes the 7 Deuterocanonical books that are included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons.

The term "New Testament Church" is fairly common parlance amongst Pentecostals (but by no means restricted to just them - eg), so it's not particularly suprising that a particular congregation may be named as such. It's not any kind of statement against "following the Old Testament" as such, but it's more based on:

The people of God in the Old Testament are not usually referred to as "the Church", but rather as Israel.
It's a subtle acknowledgement of the belief that many modern churches have adopted beliefs, traditions and practices that do not have a biblical basis and have thus departed from the Church found in the New Testament which is believed to be what we should be aiming to return to as our model.


Is William Barclay a respected theologian in mainstream Christianity? William Barclay
A prolific author of 70 books, including commentaries on each New Testament books, is a well known and often quoted scholar.
However some have written articles about him and challenge his Christianity based on the facts that he did not accept the miracles of Jesus, did not believe in the preexistence of Jesus, was a universalist and as can be seen in the quote below did not hold to classic views on the trinity.

Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus as God. Jesus did not say, "He who has seen me has seen God." He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God's omnipotence in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know. I do not see God's omnipotence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do (William Barclay, A Spiritual Biography, 1977 Edition, p. 56).

Is William Barclay an esteemed scholar recognized by main stream Christianity, or are his views considered heretical in many ways?

Professor William Barclay has been somewhat misrepresented by some who object to the fact that he held to some ‘liberal’ ideas (theologically speaking). This Greek scholar and Classics expert certainly was at odds with many Christians on quite a few points, but not with regard to Jesus being God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity. Whatever critics say about this man (who is not around to defend himself), he cannot be charged with lending any support to anti-trinitarian religionists who deny that “the Word was God”. I am not interested in defending the theology of Barclay, nor am I versed in his writings, but I do object to those who try to use partial quotes from his writings regarding the deity of Christ, to either claim he wasn’t “a real Christian” at all, or that he actually agrees with anti-trinitarians who deny that “the Word was God”. He never did support that school of thought.  It is scholastically dishonest to cite him in such a way that he appears to claim that Jesus was not God incarnate.
The article quoted from in the OPs answer to his own question is interesting in that the writer (Dudley Ross) criticises Barclay for being “a liberal”; for being less than enamoured of evangelicals in the 20th century who were viewed as being conservatives, whereas he viewed himself as a liberal evangelical; for admitting to having ‘borrowed ideas’ and not original ones of his own. Ross quotes Barclay as making the allegation, "The phrase `born of woman' has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth." I know of some trinitarians who would agree, because that phrase is never said of Jesus in the Bible – it is said of John the Baptist.
Ross does more partial quoting to accuse Barclay of this theological error: “Barclay really did not believe that Jesus was God.” The partial quote Ross uses does not favour us with the context or if Barclay then went on to add how Jesus was, indeed, God, despite those truthful points from scripture he had detailed. Like Barclay, trinitarians know that they cannot quote a verse that says “Jesus is God”, as if Jesus was the entire summation of God when the Bible is clear that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, yet both are equally God in their divine Being. So, when Barclay highlights how Jesus was sent by the Father, and prayed to Father God, and was devoted to doing the will of his Father, that would be something trinitarians agree with.
When it comes to ‘proof’ that Barclay did not believe Jesus was God, the best Ross can come up with is to refer to another person, a liberal -

“Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come
through in the expalatory [sic?] notes. The reader should be alert for
both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity
(Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an
impersonal force emanating from God)…”

But Barclay has never stated that Christ is “a mere man” nor that the Holy Spirit is “an impersonal force emanating from God.” If Barclay had said any such things, you may be sure that direct quotes would have been given. Instead, we have an attempt to tar Barclay with the same Unitarian brush that smears Thayer.
Now let Barclay speak up in protest at those who deny that Jesus is God, and who claim that the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God. Before he died, he took a group to task for trying to partially quote him to imply that he supported them. He wrote,

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New
Testament translations.  John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a
god’, a translation which is grammatically impossible… It is
abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament
like that is intellectually dishonest.”

And that is the issue here – intellectual dishonesty. It is not about the extent of Barclay’s theological liberalism on matters other than the deity of Christ. I do not care how liberal Barclay might have been because I am not a follower of Barclay nor was I taught by him. I am only concerned with the issue of whether anti-trinitarians can cite him honestly as one of their own, or whether Barclay held to a higher, divine view of the person of Christ than they have. Many anti-trinitarians quote from Unitarians in support of their views, but the question is – can they honestly quote Barclay as a supporter of their anti-trinitarian views? I think not.
I have no intention of going on to defend Barclay by quoting copiously from his statements about the deity of Christ. It should suffice that he objected to one anti-trinitarian group trying to claim his views in support of their own on that matter. Nor will it do to claim that the question as to whether he is “a respected theologian in mainstream Christianity” links in with the claim that for many on this site “anyone who denies the trinity is not a Christian since a Christian must accept the Creeds”. Many on this site would point out that acceptance of the trinity equates with accepting what the Bible says on the matter. The biblical doctrines of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit can only ever come from the Bible. The Bible came first, creeds came later. The first century Christians wrote of how they viewed Christ, and all who call themselves Christians must adhere to what their scriptural writings declare, for therein is the revelation of God, by the Holy Spirit, as to just who this Jesus really is.
Some people in mainstream Christianity (whatever that is) will view Barclay as being a respected theologian; others will disagree. At the end of the day, people are entitled to disrespect Barclay for holding to views on many points that they disagree with, but they should not go on to approve of what he says on the person of Christ, thinking he’s anti-trinitarian when he was no such thing. Those who quote Barclay out of context on that doctrine run the risk of being scholastically dishonest.


According to Catholicism, why was Jesus angry with the money-changers at the Temple? At Mtt 22:19-21 we see Jesus outwitting the Pharisees who inquired of him whether it was right to pay tax to Caesar:

"Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

We also see at Mtt 17: 24 when it comes to paying of the Temple Tax :

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” - Matthew 17:24

Clearly, Jews used separate sets of  coins viz. the Roman coin denarius for paying tax to the Roman Emperor and the Greek coin drachma to pay the Temple Tax. Presumably the money changers at the Temple were accepting Roman coins and giving Greek coins to the Jews in return, after deducting their commission, so that the latter could use them as offering in the Temple.
But at Mtt 21:12 we see Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers, apparently for the reason that they were over-charging the devotees and thereby `making the Temple a den of robbers '(Mt 21:13). My question therefore is: What was the role of money-changers at the Temple, and why was Jesus harsh with them? What explanation does the Catholic Church give to the angry reaction of Jesus to the money-changers?

We know from history and from scripture that there were 3 special "pilgrimage festivals" in the year, when Jews all had to come to Jerusalem. Passover, Pentecost and Feast of Booths/Sukkot, and this is important because it answers your question as to the role of the money changers. Much like the countries in Europe, you can travel a few hours and be in three different countries, with a totally different language, culture and currency. Jews living in another region would have to get their money changed into local currency, as well as the Roman state tax. I never understood the importance of Kantors (money changers) until I lived in Central Europe. In addition to the Jews from other regions, there were also foreigners [Gentiles] and this leads us to the The other, most important reason for Jesus's righteous anger toward the money changers is given to us in 2 places in scripture, but it is often missed.
It wasn't WHAT the money changers did that angered Christ, it was WHERE they did it.
I also agree that these money changers charged extra commissions, and were cheating the people, but that's more like the 1/2 teaspoon of salt in the cake.
The money changers were both legal and necessary.
Remember the Pharisees were experts in finding 'loopholes' in the law, so that they would technically be following the legal letter of the law, but really, in their hearts they were breaking the law.
So we have to look outside the gospels to find the clue we need.
It's found in Isaiah 56:7 and Christ actually quotes part of this passage in one gospel account.  It's so fascinating.  The chapter heading for Isaiah 56 is "Salvation for Foreigners".

I will bring them to my Holy Mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations." - Isaiah 56:7

The story of Jesus cleansing the temple is in several gospels, but only in the Gospel of Mark, we find the other missing piece that solves the riddle. It's in Mark 11:17. In this passage, Christ actually quotes the passage from Isaiah . "And he was teaching them and saying to them, 'Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a den of robbers."
The temple in Jerusalem had three main sections [besides the holy place, only for priests]. There was the outer court, which was the court of the Gentiles, the court of women, and the court for Jewish males. The money changers set up their tables like a giant Flea Market in the court of the Gentiles - blocking the nations from worshiping like God intended.
It wasn't WHAT the money changers did that angered Christ, it was WHERE they did it.
The Pharisees didn't even realize it, but this act of cleansing the temple actually fulfilled a prophecy about the Messiah, written hundreds of years before Christ.  Zeal for Your house [his Father's house] will consume Me. Psalm 69:9


Did David prophesy "God ruling the nations from a Tree"? A few days ago (on the Feast of the Cross) the Vexilla Regis popped up in the breviary. Its 3rd/4th stanza says:

  That which the prophet-king of old
  hath in mysterious verse foretold,
  is now accomplished, whilst we see
  God ruling the nations from a Tree.

The prophet-king is obviously the Old Testament King David (the Latin original as well as most translations I found mention him more explicitly).  In the context of the hymn it is clear that this prophecy is foretelling Jesus' death on the cross—his death as the victory establishing his kingdom, the tree as cross he died on.

To me this seems to be a very explicit prophecy made by David. Unfortunately I was not able to find such a prophecy.

Question: Is there any place in the Bible (probably the Psalms) or in the extrabiblical tradition ascribing a similar prophecy to King David? If not, where does the cited piece of the hymn have its origin?

See King David's Psalm 95:10:

  say ye among the Gentiles that our Lord hath reigned*. For he hath corrected the round world which shall not be moved: he will judge peoples in equity.*[Some add here: "from the wood/tree/cross" or "a ligno." See commentary below.]

The Original Douay-Rheims commentary on this verse notes that:

  Diverse ancient Doctors read more in this place: Our Lord hath reigned from the wood [a ligno], to wit, Christ by his death on the cross conquered the Devil, sin, and death, and thence began to reign. St. Justinus Martyr, dialogo aduers. Triphonem. Tertullian li. aduers. Iudæos. c. 9. &. 13.  & aduers Marcionem. li 3 c. 19. &. 21. St. Augustine, in this place, according to the old Roman Psalter Before him Arnobius, and after him Cassiadorus and others, Whereby it is probable, that it was sometimes in the Hebrew text, and blotted out by the Jews.

From the Haydock Commentary:

  Ver. 10. Reigned. St. Bernard says, "the kingdom of Jesus is in the wood." (Du Hamel) --- St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) accuses the Jews of retrenching apo tou xulou, "from the wood," which all the Latin Fathers, except St. Jerome, acknowledge in their copies. That ancient author, being born among the Samaritans, could hardly be so ignorant of the Hebrew text, and his antagonist does not attempt to refute the charge; so that it seems probable, that they were in the original, (Berthier) and since erased by the Jews, from the Septuagint, who added them, (Worthington) by the spirit of prophecy. (Tournemine) --- But how came Christians to permit this to be done in their Hebrew, Greek, and Latin copies? The words in question may have been, therefore, a marginal gloss, which had crept into the text. (Faber, Justiniani, &c.) --- They do not occur in the parallel passage, (1 Paralipomenon) nor in the Vulgate, though they be retained in the Roman breviary. (Calmet) --- Lindan objects this perfidy of the Jews to the Reformers, not reflecting, that he thus condemns the Vulgate. Genebrard is of opinion, that "the Septuagint were inspired to add these words, which some half-learned critics have thought proper to expunge with an impiety which is now but too common." The Popes have not, however, thought that the cross stood in need of this support. (Amama) --- The Chaldean and Syriac, as well as all the copies of the Septuagint extant, and the Arabic and Ethiopic versions taken from it, and all the Greek interpreters and Fathers, (except St. Justin) with St. Jerome, both in his versions from the Hebrew and Septuagint, omit these words, which are found in the Roman, Gothic, and other psalters. Origen's Hexapla seem to have most enabled the Greeks to discern the interpolation, which the Latins retained longer, not having such easy access to that work. Whatever may be the decision on this important matter, it is certain that the reign of Christ was propagated from the wood, in a wonderful manner, as he there began to draw all to himself, and the prophet seems evidently to allude to the times when Christ proclaimed, the kingdom of God is at hand, and when the conversion of the Gentiles, and the institution of the blessed Eucharist (ver. 8.) would fill all the world with rapture. (Haydock) --- The positive testimony of St. Justin, and the Italic version used by the Latin Fathers, (Berthier) Tertullian, St. Augustine, &c., (Worthington) seems of more weight to prove the authenticity of the words, than the simple omission in the copies of Origen, and St. Jerome, &c., to evince the contrary. (Berthier) --- Corrected. Evil morals and idolatry, (Menochius) rather than the physical order of the globe, Psalm xcii. 1. (Berthier) --- Hebrew, "he hath balanced," (Houbigant) or established. (Haydock) --- The Christian faith shall not be abolished, (Menochius) or corrected. (Haydock) --- "Faith is not to be reformed." (Tertullian) --- Justice. Ancient psalters add, "and the Gentiles in his wrath," ver. 13., and Psalm xcviii. 8.

Here is what St. Justin Martyr says (Dialogue with Trypho ch. 73) about the alleged removal of the words "from the wood":

  Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'

  Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

  Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.


Was Boaz named after the column in the temple? Was Ruth's husband, Boaz named after the column by the temple of Solomon or vice versa?  Or was this a quiescence? Was this a common name for boys?

Ruth 2:1 ESV

  Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of
  Elimelech, whose name was Boaz.

and

2 Chronicles 3:17 ESV

  He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the south, the
  other on the north; that on the south he called Jachin, and that on
  the north Boaz.

If anything, it would be the other way around.

Boaz was David's great grandfather. Solomon was David's son.

The Temple wasn't built until Solomon's time.

According to Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible, some scholars believe the names of the columns may have gotten their names from "a dynastic inscription" upon them. Since Boaz is, indeed, in David's lineage, it is entirely possible that the column was named after Ruth's kinsman redeemer, the forefather of the great king.

(That was pretty cool, by the way, hadn't noted the connection before. Thanks!)


How is sinning judged after accepting Christ? How is sinning judged after accepting Christ?

Are there classifications?

Are we clear of every sin?

What about repetitive sin of the same type?

(All assumed after accepting Christ.)

Generally speaking, a sin is a sin, is a sin, whether or not the individual is a believer. The difference is that believers are forgiven and are accepted by God because they have Christ's righteousness "imputed" to them by faith. (See "Sola Fide," "Salvation by Grace through Faith").

Romans 3:23 is one text often offered as proof that, from a biblical perspective, all people are guilty of sin. Many denominations also teach that Christians necessarily continue to sin, even after they are saved (see Mat 5:21-30). (A notable exception to this is found in the Methodist doctrines of "Christian Perfection," taught by the Wesley brothers in the eighteenth century). Romans 7:13-25 is another text often offered as proof that believers continue to sin -- it is frequently interpreted as teaching that Paul recognized sin in himself, post-conversion. See also Romans 6.

The basic notion of forgiveness in Christianity is that all human beings are guilty of sin, and there is no way that we can earn our way into heaven by doing good deeds; once we've committed one sin, we're as guilty as if we had broken every law in the book (see James 2:10). In order to glorify himself, God has chosen to have mercy on some sinners and save them, but since he is perfectly just, someone had to be punished for the sins that had been committed by the people he chose to save, and that person could only be one that had not first incurred his own debt of sin. So, God punished sinless Christ, and -- without getting into doctrines like election, free will, universalism, monergism vs synergism, etc. -- he applied that atonement to believers, who are then seen "in Christ" as sinless and so are accepted by God.

One common point of confusion is the notion that "all sins are equal." There is a wide consensus that such is not the case, though there are those who will argue the point. A simple Google search on "are all sins equal" will return a wealth of results, so I won't elaborate further here, except to clarify the basic idea. (BTW, remember to consult only credible, verifiable sources, whichever perspective they advocate). While some sins are, in God's sight, worse than others, as soon as a person has committed one sin of any sort, they have become "unclean," and are permanently barred from heaven. God takes sin so seriously that all sin must be punished, and the punishment associated with any one sin is such that it could only be paid by Christ. That being said, it is possible for one person to incur a greater "sin debt" compared with another, but in any case, all sin is forgiven when one receives Christ. (Note that there is reference in the NT to something called the "unforgivable sin," which is a weighty and contentious doctrinal issue in and of itself).

See the Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 150 - 153.

Some denominations teach that a saved person can "backslide" and become involved in sin, and that such a person needs to be "restored." Other denominations teach that the presence of "significant," or ongoing, repetitive sin in one's life is a potential indication that one was not truly saved in the first place, since regeneration places the love of God in one's heart, and sin both angers & grieves God. Some teach that once a person is truly saved, he can never become "unsaved" (see "Perseverance of the Saints," "T.U.L.I.P."); others believe that it is possible for a person to "fall away" and "be restored" many times.

It is also commonly taught that the rewards that individual believers receive in heaven will be commensurate with the righteousness of the life they lived on earth. The most commonly referenced reward that I have heard about relates to the "number of cities" that one will rule over in heaven. Some also teach that there are varying degrees of punishment in hell. Some examples of passages that are offered by those who support such teachings are the parables at Luke 19:11-27 and Luke 12:47-48.

Addendum: I thought about this topic some more, and it brought to mind something called the "Lordship Salvation Controversy." It's been some time since I looked into this area of soteriology, but one thing that hasn't changed in the intervening years is the caustic nature of most of the internet discussions on the topic. (Btw, for times like these, it can be useful to bear in mind Paul's exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:22-26).

"Lordship salvation" refers to one doctrine that claims to describe specifically what God requires of his followers. The alternative doctrine is sometimes called "Non-Lordship Salvation," or, disparagingly, "easy believism." I don't feel qualified to attempt a concise summary of the issues, but here are some links that I've tried to vet for you. I encourage you to use caution in consulting the links that result from a "lordship salvation" internet search, as many of them seem to be filled with invective.

Some useful links:

I'm very familiar with the ministries of John Piper (Desiring God) and RC Sproul (Ligonier) . Both are well educated, compassionate men, with strong understandings of Reformed theology.

John Piper from Desiring God Ministries on Lordship Salvation. (Long list of scripture proofs).
Articles tagged "Lordship Salvation" in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.
Devotionals tagged "Lordship Salvation" in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.
More content from Ligonier.

Here's a site called "Monergism." Monergism is actually the name of a doctrine, and the site staunchly advocates in favor of their viewpoint, but does so in an intelligent way. In reviewing their extensive list of links on Lordship Salvation I recognized some credible names with historic significance.

Resources at Monergism.com.

I'm not particularly familiar with Theopedia. A quick look over their pages on Lordship Salvation and Non-Lordship Salvation throws up no immediate red flags. It looks like they link almost exclusively to contemporary teachers for their references, at least for this topic.

Theopedia entry for "Lordship Salvation."
Theopedia entry for "Non-Lordship Salvation."

And here's a link to a discussion from a few months ago (early 2012) that includes what looks like some intelligent comments on the issue:

PuritanBoard.com discussion on Lordship Salvation, Feb 2012.

Hope this doesn't seem overwhelming. There's probably enough resources in this post to get started on a dissertation! The teachings of RC Sproul and John Piper are normally very accessible, and a great place to start if you're new to a topic and like a Reformed perspective. Cheers.


What is the name of the view that the Earth is 4 billion years old, but God inserted human beings 5000 years ago? In the book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God author John C. Lennox puts forward an unorthodox 'third view' of Christian origins.

He suggests that perhaps the Earth is 4 Billion years old, and that geology and evolution ran their course as the scientific evidence tells us. He then posits that God intervened in scientific history to insert human beings 5000 years ago.

Interestingly enough - this lines up with scientific evidence and Biblical Genealogies.

To me this idea should have a category so we can compare it to other ideas and critique it. But I can't find the name of this idea.

My question is: What is the name of the view that the Earth is 4 billion years old, but God inserted human beings 5000 years ago?

The Gap Theory

The Gap Theory proposes that there was a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and that the rest of Genesis 1 is effectively a re-creation story, after the creation and chaos of the gap. Most Gap Theory proponents interpret Genesis 1:2-1:31 as describing a six day creation, and would date it around six thousand years ago, as the following genealogies are thought to indicate.

Exegetically the theory is very poor, and is as incompatible with conventional science as young earth creationism, so its popularity is now greatly reduced.

Homo divinus

Some Christians believe in a historical Adam, who was the first 'real' human - the first made in the image of God, the first with a spirit (or soul), the first moral human etc. God specially created Adam and Eve, perhaps as a new creation, or perhaps by transforming one of the prior human-like creatures, and this took place around six thousand years ago. John Stott coined the name Homo divinus for the spiritual human made in the image of God:

  But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation. (John Stott, Understanding the Bible: Expanded Edition; 54-56)

This kind of theory is better than the Gap Theory, and is not incompatible with conventional science (though in fact it would be completely scientifically non-falsifiable.) Theologically though it has major problems: if all conventional science is to be accepted, but Adam and Eve lived only so long ago, then does that mean that peoples such as Aboriginal Australians who migrated to Australia some forty thousand years ago and then were out of communication with most of the world are not Homo divinus, that they are not actually made in the image of God?

I don't have any references on this, but I'd imagine that some extend the Homo divinus theory to say that, rather than God making a single couple, Adam and Eve, God transformed all Homo sapiens into Homo divinus at the same time. This solves the problem I just raised, but then loses the main benefit of Stott's Homo divinus theory: having a historical Adam and a historical fall.

Progressive creationism

One view that has some similarities to the previous one is Progressive creationism, which says that through the ages God has directly and specially created each life form, including humans. This view accepts the conventional age of the earth and fossils dates, but rejects evolution. Instead each kind of creature was created as is by God, and has remained the same since that time. As with Homo divinus, progressive creationists would accept that there were homonids before modern Homo sapiens. Seeing as there appears to be evidence of Homo sapiens long before six thousand years ago, many progressive creationists would probably say that God created them before that time, but some might say that God created them when the Biblical genealogies would indicate.


How can one judge how accurate a given Bible translation is? How can I figure out whether a given translation is "accurate" or not? Is there a site or list somewhere that has Bible-translation ratings?

Note that I am not asking for a list of what Bible translations are most accurate, only for a resource or way to judge this for myself.

Inspired by comments on this question.

"How accurate is translation X compared to translation Y?" sounds like a simple question, but it really isn't at all. There really can't be a single definitive translation, for a variety of reasons.

Some questions to ask about any particular translation are:

What source texts were being used? Newer translations aren't automatically better than older ones, but most scholars will agree (for instance) that the King James / Authorized Version must suffer from the fact that the translators only had access to relatively late copies of many texts.
What is the goal of this particular translation? The Good News Bible is more about accessibility than accuracy, so while it strives to be a faithful rendition, the need to use a compact vocabulary and keep sentences simple means that some nuances will be lost.
*Are there footnotes showing, for instance, important variant readings?" Translations that aim for high accuracy should also draw their readers' attention to issues such as doubt over the meaning of particular words, cases where there are rival ways of seeing where sentences and phrases start and end (there's no punctuation in all those Greek texts!) and significant differences between source texts that haven't been resolved by scholarship.

There really isn't - and couldn't be - such a thing as a definitive translation - even less a permanent one. Language just doesn't work like that. But it's well worth getting to know the aims, strengths and weaknesses of a few translations, particularly if you want to get to grips with the fine detail.

For me, I most often read Today's New International Version, because I find it reads very naturally, if I'm studying more deeply I'll reach for the *New Revised Standard Version," and if I'm looking to freshen up my view I'll add in a reading with more of the translator's personality, such as Eugene Petersen's The Message or J. B. Phillips (not a complete Bible translation). I have a host of others on shelves both actual and virtual, and I have at least enough rusty Greek to put an interlinear (Greek with English) to use if I want to try and see why translations differ.


Tackling Catholic philosophy and theology I'd like to read and understand Catholic theology, philosophy and Tradition as best as I can.

I'm a biologist and not a philosopher/theologian -- and as such, I cannot (and thus far have not) dedicated massive amounts of time to reading/understanding explicitly the texts and concepts of specific philosophers/theologians in their entirety. I'm not opposed to reading the many influential authors, but given my lack of time to dedicate fully to this endeavor, I'd like to go about reading these authors in the most efficient way, if you will.

My question then: which major texts/authors should I prioritize reading (and in what order) to better grasp the current theology/philosophy of the Catholic faith?

My impression is, that I would benefit greatly reading the following (with supposed additions added in parentheses) in the presented order (first to last):

(Plato) > Aristotle > Irenaeus > Augustine > Aquinas > Ratzinger

Does this seem sensible? Are each of these authors necessary (as I suppose) to truly understand the other? Or can I read Aquinas or Ratzinger (for example) and get a good enough grasp of prior thought/philosophers? Are there other authors that are hugely important that I skipped (e.g., Descartes?)?

Is there a textbook perhaps that anyone can recommend that introduces me to a sensible and necessary reading list or conceptual walkthrough?

(I guess I'm ultimately looking for an "official" list (perhaps from a well-respected textbook, theologian, or the Church itself) vs anecdotal commentary. )

Read St. Thomas Aquinas, especially his Summa Theologica or his own briefer introductory summary of it, the Compendium Theologiæ.
From Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Essence & Topicality of Thomism pt. 1, §2 "The Excellence of Thomism":

St. Robert Bellarmine similarly speaks of St. Thomas in the introduction of his treatise on the Holy Trinity:

Certainly, if everyone proposes with such order, facility, and brevity to us, as I venture to affirm, that he who diligently studies a few of St. Thomas’s questions finds nothing difficult either in Scriptures, the Councils, or the future Fathers of the Trinity; he will make more all-around progress in two months devoted to the Summa than in several months’ study of the Scriptures and the Fathers.

Pope John XXII also said:

He (St. Thomas) has illuminated the Church more than all the other Doctors; to read his books for a year profits man more than to study the doctrine of others for his whole life.

All good, orthodox, Catholic theology is merely footnotes to the Angelic Doctor. Every pope since the 13th century has endorsed his work as thoroughly Catholic; see the magisterial endorsements quoted here. His Summa Theologica was even placed on the altar, alongside Holy Scriptures, as an authority at the Council of Trent!


Are there any denominations that believe in "Eternal Security" but deny "Perseverance of the Saints" or vice versa? According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of Perseverance of the saints is:

[...] a Christian teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life.

On the other hand, the doctrine of Eternal Security is defined as follows:

Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation. Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian.

So it appears that Perseverance of the saints is about unshakable sanctification after true conversion, whereas Eternal Security is about unshakable salvation after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines.
Question: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?

Difference in origin and groups
Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is the "P" of the TULIP formulation of early Calvinism, conceptually originating roughly from the 5 article headings of the 1618 Canons of Dort, although the acronym came later.  It is founded on the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election (the "U").
Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) came later (although conceptually it was earlier), held by Baptist groups who don't subscribe to unconditional election, but base the eternal security on Jesus' promise.  Their theology is not full Calvinism but goes back to St. Augustine, now sometimes labeled Free grace theology.  This probably happened due to the influence of Wesleyan revival compromising the doctrine of Predestination.
So what's the difference if the result is the same?  One forum poster smartly said that:

"Eternal security" is simply a Free Grace [theology] relabeling of "Perseverance of the Saints"

Difference in the "experiencing"
But as blog article Five Differences Between Perseverance of the Saints and Eternal Security shows (emphasis mine):

[First two points I used in the previous section above]
Third, POTS and OSAS have different views of the condition of salvation. This comes out clearly when POTS advocates say that people who fall away into error or unbelief never truly believed to begin with. In effect, POTS advocates typically teach that you are born again or justified by a continuous faith that must be the “gift” faith that God only gives to the elect. Essentially, salvation does not only depend on what you believe, but how you believe it. By contrast, OSAS says there is only one kind of faith (persuasion that something is true) and that what matters is what you believe, not how you believe. Salvation requires a single act of faith in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47).
Fourth, POTS and OSAS take different perspectives on sanctification. According to POTS, sanctification is unconditional. Since the elect are predestined to salvation, and God causes them to be sanctified, they will never fall into major sin or unbelief in this life but will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, OSAS sees sanctification as conditional. You have to choose to be a doer of the word to be sanctified, and there is no guarantee that you will progress from a carnal state to a spiritual one. But believers are eternally secure whether they experience practical sanctification or not.
Fifth, POTS and OSAS have different effects on assurance. Under POTS, you cannot be sure of your salvation because you cannot be sure if you are one of the elect with special gift faith who will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, for OSAS, assurance is not only possible, it is the essence of saving faith. Jesus promised believers everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-26). Hence, you cannot believe that promise without believing the life He gives is everlasting.

Ken Hamrick's post explains in a lot more depth the differences summarized above.
Conclusion
The two labels survive because they help distinguish the two kind of salvation "experience" and in so doing clarify discussions and reduce confusion as the two concepts have quite different content after investigation.
Although the result is the same, because the doctrine's content is different, the experience of the salvation journey is also different.  In addition:

Baptist groups who label the experience as "Eternal Security" usually don't subscribe to the full TULIP, so they deny "Perseverance of the Saints"
Calvinist groups who label their doctrine as "Perseverance of the Saints" in full fidelity to their theological tradition will deny "Eternal Security" doctrine once they realize it doesn't necessarily have the critical component "Unconditional Election"


Is the Genesis creation account consistent with the Big Bang theory according to Catholic theology? I'm doing some research and am trying to determine whether the creation story of Genesis, chapter 1 (7 days-let there be light) is consistent with the Big Bang Theory. I am finding sources that contradict one another. I'd like to know if the Genesis story of creation is consistent with the Big bang theory solely from a Catholic point of view.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. the inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation — its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
290 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth":128 three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" — Hebrew bara — always has God for its subject). the totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.
295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143 God creates "out of nothing".
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing".145

Thus it may be seen that Catholic teaching, expressed in the Catechism, does not depend on the literal truth (or not) of Genesis 1. Other than a few brief words of literary analysis, it expresses no opinion — although St Augustine of Hippo certainly did. What is important is that Genesis 1 testifies that God created all that exists, and did so from nothing.
Although God is continually revealing himself and his methods, scientists have not reached the origin of creation, either by observation of the deep universe or by theoretical calculation. Even if one posits that the Big Bang was the means by which creation was effected, it is thought that everything emanated from a singularity: a point of infinite density and zero size — nothing.

128: Gen 1.1
141: Cf Wis 9:9
142: Rev 4:11
143: Pss 104:24; 145:9
144: Cf Dei Filius, cann 2–4 (1869)
145: Lateran Council IV (1215)


How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? This chart from Wikipedia quite nicely explains what pseudoscience is:

I think it's quite clear from the Bible that we Christians shouldn't give room to superstitions. As pseudoscience is close to superstition, should we treat it the same? What guidelines should be used when deciding whether to believe what some call pseudoscience?

For reference, some examples of claimed pseudoscience (from Wikipedia):

  Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design, orgone energy, N-rays, ch'i, L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory, enneagram, iridology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, New Age psychotherapies (e.g., rebirthing therapy), reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, extrasensory perception (ESP), Velikovsky's ideas, von Däniken's ideas, Sitchen's ideas, anthropometry, post-normal science, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, physiognomy, acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy.

(You may assume that creation science and intelligent design are in fact protoscience, if you want to avoid focusing on them.)

The Bible advises wisdom, not naiveté:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV):

  20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Proverbs 2:9-11 (ESV):

  9Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. 10For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you.

Although the scientific method, properly applied, is simply a rigorous way to test everything and hold fast what is true (note: not necessarily good, but similar in spirit), one can decorate all sorts of whims and falsehoods with the appearance of science.  Pseudoscience delivers no more wisdom and knowledge than superstition simply because it pretends to be science; you have to actually rigorously apply the scientific method for it to work.

Thus, Christians should adopt the same stance towards pseudoscience--that it is not knowledge, not wisdom, and not to be held fast--as they do towards superstition.


Beatification/canonization process in Eastern Orthodox Church What is necessary before someone is considered "saint" in Eastern Orthodox Church? Good life/martyrdom, any miracle/only preservation of the body/some other distinct miracle and cult of the saint? Is there something similar to beatification/canonization process, or is the saintness of certain person just pronounced? Who have the authority to pronounce someone saint?

I can tell you of the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is a Synodal Commission which examines the issue and has the authority to glorify the person as a saint.

There are locally venerated saints, which are venerated in a eparchy, and commonly venerated saints, which are inserted to the calendar common to all the church.

The eparchial veneration is sanctioned by the Patriarch and common veneration is sanctioned by the Сouncil of Bishops.

The main criteria are:

righteous life
irreproachable orthodoxy
popular veneration
working of miracles
imperishable relics
martyrdom

After the material confirming a person's sainthood is submitted to the Synodal Commission by the Eparchy or other body, it checks if there are evidences of a righteous life by the contemporaries, documented and verifiable miracles, if relics are present and if the claimed genuinely professed Orthodox Christianity and was in communion with the Patriarchate Church, and it recommends the Patriarch or the Council to affirm the claim.

Also, there are different titles to the saints in Orthodox church, describing their life position - clergymen/laymen/marthyrs etc. See Wikipedia

There is a source in Russian:

What i wrote is from the Internet, I have no personal expertise or experience in canonisation process, so use this info with "limited warranty".


Who wrote the book of Hebrews and is the book complete? I was recently reading in the book of Hebrews when I realized that I didn't know who was speaking, and I haven't been able to figure it out.

I was just reading a commentary that stated it was James, the brother of Jesus.  And another commentary that thought it was Paul, but, I've noticed that Paul always seems to introduce himself.  Which made me wonder something else - is the first page missing?  Because it seems as if the chapter starts in the middle of a conversation.  Have there been any studies on this?

What is an overview of scholarly research on authorship of Hebrews?

We do not know who wrote the book now known as the Epistle to the Hebrews, although at one stage it was thought that Paul was the author.  Hebrews was never seriously attributed to James, brother of Jesus.

Burton L. Mack says, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 188, the author of Hebrews was male, because of a masculine gender self-reference (Heb ll:32). He  may not have had as quick and sharp a mind as Paul, or as personal and passionate an approach to public debate and theological argumentation, but he was far superior to Paul in learning, analytical capacity, and systematic thinking.  In Mack's view, he was capable of keeping in mind large quantities of conceptual detail and working with multiple themes as he wove concepts in and out of a vast Platonic world of ideas.

Mack says that as far as scholars have been able to tell, the author and the Christian congregation he had in mind might have been located anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Paul Barnett believes he can narrow the location of the author down to Alexandria in Egypt, although this still does not give us a name.  He says, in The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, page 108, that the Letter is written in superior koine Greek, with an elaborate use of allegory consistent with the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria.

Hebrews would appear to be incomplete if it had been an epistle, as it was normal practice, followed by Paul and others, to open with a greeting. However, there is nothing - other than the salutations at the end of the book - to suggest that, in its original form, Hebrews was really an epistle.


Total Depravity vs the Rich Man If I understand "Total Depravity" from Calvinism -- apart from God's grace, there is nothing good within us -- we are miserable, evil creatures.

In light of this, I have some questions about the rich man in Luke 16:

  Luke 16:27-28 (NIV)
  27  “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

Why does he wish well for his family (rather than an attitude of: I don't care about anyone, if they go to hell, they go to hell)?
Why does he wish well for heaven (the heaven rejoices whenever a sinner repents])?
Why does he still have what appears to be compassion despite having not been elected?

I think you've got a misunderstanding of the concept of "Total Depravity" and of the definition of the word "good" from a Christian perspective.

Total Depravity does not mean that we are totally evil. It doesn't mean that we have no good within us whatsoever.  Everybody on earth has some good in them, so it would be utter foolishness to interpret the doctrine in such a way.

On the other hand, "good" in our understanding is a relative term.  We can do good things, we can think good thoughts.  Someone who is generally caring, loving, and giving is considered a good person. But such a person is not perfect.  Everyone has a flaw.

In the context of Christianity and salvation, "good" is a black and white issue.  "Good" would mean 100% in line with God's thinking - in thought and in action.  In other words, it would be completely without sin.  Even one sin in our life disqualifies us from the level of "goodness" needed to earn our way into heaven.

  For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he
  is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)

Which brings us back to total depravity.

It doesn't mean "devoid of any good thing".  It means "Separated from God, and completely unable to do anything, whatsoever, that could do anything to assist in our own salvation."

In non-technical, layman's terms, it means that salvation is completely, 100% the work of God, with no action, not even one of surrender on the part of the believer.  Totally depraved simply means completely separated from God, with no power whatsoever to do anything in the least to be saved.

This is contrasted with the belief of partial depravity, which goes hand-in-hand with resistible grace espoused in Arminian theology, which says we do have the power to do one thing - accept the free gift of salvation offered to us.  In Arminianism, we believe there is an act of accepting the gift on the part of the believer.  The believer has the power to choose.  Grace is resistible.

In Calvinism, that power doesn't exist, or is an illusion because even if the believer thinks he is choosing to put his faith in Christ, the fact is that God predestined that believer to do so.  The believer has no choice.  Grace is irresistible, because God has ordained that person to believe.

Either way, however, both "Total depravity" and "Partial depravity" see no issue with the Rich man's ability to do good things.  Again, everyone is capable of doing "good" just not the type of "good" that leads to salvation.


What is the basis for believing that the wrath of God is not an accommodation? It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many accommodated descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach the immutability of God, so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations.

The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of penal substitutionary atonement.

What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.

Definition
Accommodation means that we use finite terms to describe an infinite God, and thus naturally come up short.  This is certainly true, so in some sense every description of God is an accommodation.  However, that does not mean a given description does not correspond to a truth.  Thus, for the purposes of this answer, I am restating the question to be "What is the basis for believing descriptions of God's wrath correspond to a true aspect of His nature?" which I think is the real question here.
Basic principle
Perhaps the strongest argument against viewing God's wrath as an accommodation is the lack of evidence for this understanding.  The view is primarily driven by human desire to avoid putting "impure" emotions such as anger on to God.  However, the idea that anger is "wrong" is driven my philosophical ideas about how the ideal person should act, not the Bible.  Indeed, Paul writes:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. (Ephesians 4:26-7, ESV)

Notice what Paul does not say here - "do not be angry." Instead, he says something like "It's OK to be angry, but resolve your angry quickly, so that it doesn't develop into something actually sinful."  This line is actually an illusion to Psalms 4:4:

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.

So, if anger is not automatically sinful for man, then there is no need to "explain" God's anger.  And there is a real danger is seeking a way to explain away things that make us uncomfortable.  If "negative" emotions attributed to God are merely accommodations, who is to say that "positive" ones aren't?  Perhaps God is actually ambivalent to humanity and we just think He loves us because that  of our finite understanding of God...  It is one thing to say the "eyes of the Lord" (e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:9), which can easily be read as a metaphor in context, are an accommodation.  It is quite another to say something (e.g. wrath) that is explicitly described as an attribute of God is one.
Finally, it should be noted that while "wrath" a synonym for anger, it is not equivalent.  Biblically, God's wrath is the opposite of his satisfaction or pleasure in men's actions.  That is, it is a term used to describe His displeasure with man.  It is described in terms of anger, sadness, even hatred, but it is not merely an emotion, but rather part of God's righteous judgement. (e.g. Romans 2, see below)
I will now analyze some specific verse that illustrate that the "wrath of God," while perhaps not a 100% perfect description, is a fundamentally accurate way to describe an aspect of God.  The list is by no means exhaustive.
Romans 1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Paul's argument here is that everyone is without excuse for knowing God because his actions are plainly seen, and from these actions his divine attributes are evident.  To back up his argument, he says the "wrath of God is revealed from heaven."   That is, evil and unrighteous behavior have clearly been punished.  If God was not truly wrathful, and was only described that way for our benefit, then Paul's argument would have no force.  The unbelievers certainly could not be expected to naturally perceive wrath that did not actually exist.
Indeed, the wrath of God is contrasted with "the righteousness of God [which] is revealed from faith for faith." (v17) While righteousness can only be seen through the eye of faith, wrath is apparent to all.  One would have to jump through hoops to explain how the "unreal" wrath of God is apparent while the "real" righteousness of God is invisible to unbelievers.
Deuteronomy
A similar theme is found in Deuteronomy.

Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the LORD is giving you. (Deuteronomy 11:16-17)
Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike.The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law. And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the LORD has made it sick-- the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath (Deuteronomy 29:18-23)

Here, we have two instances of a specific sin (turning away form God) leading to a specific punishment (barren land).  The specific language makes it difficult (exegetically) to see this as anything but a literal description. Furthermore, this punishment is something that "all the nations" will recognize as God's wrath (v24).  If wrath was a mere accommodation and not actual action by God, it is hard to explain how Gentiles will understand that God is in action here.
Romans 2

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
... but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (Romans 2:2-5; 8-9)

In this passage, Paul clearly ties the wrath of God to His righteous judgment of mankind.  By doing evil, the sinner is "storing up wrath" that will be result in judgment on the "day of wrath."  If the wrath being stored/delivered is not literal or not roughly equivalent to human wrath, then it is difficult to see what "tribulation and distress" the sinner will be suffering.  Note also that the suffering is tied not an abstract person, but rather "the Jew" and "the Greek" - precisely Paul's original audience.  If we were to understand this passage as a metaphor for God's character, we would expect at least some sort of textual clue, but instead the message is delivered in very concrete terms, and explicitly directed at the (original) reader.
Leviticus 26
Leviticus 26:14-43 describes the punishment Israel will face for failing to keep the commandments. Here again, specific sins are met with specific punishments, making it difficult to view God's wrath as merely accommodating language.  The whole section illustrates the point, but I would like to focus one thought:

But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. (26:27-8)

These verses uses the doubled pronoun I myself to emphasize the personal nature of God's punishment.  If, for example, man's punishment was just the natural consequence of sin and not a direct action of God (i.e. if God's wrath was accommodating language), this emphasis would be out of place.  Furthermore, the sevenfold nature of the discipline would seem to indicate that the punishment is more than the inevitable consequence of the sin.  The author of Leviticus is making it quite clear that the punishment given is from the direct action of God, which means it emanates from an actual aspect of God's nature.
Matthew 11

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “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. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 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. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. (Matthew 11:20-24)

In Matthew 11, Jesus harshly rebukes a series of cities for failing to repent.  In Matthew 23, He casts similar judgment on to the scribes and Pharisees.  Although neither passage uses the term "wrath," it is apparent that Jesus is passing judgment on these groups.  The passages certainly read much more naturally if one sees an element of anger in  Jesus' speech.  In Mark 3:5, He is explicitly described as angry:

And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart

Jesus on Earth can legitimately be described as angry, and He describes judgment of certain groups in harsh "wrath-like" terms.  As such, it is only natural that passages that describe God's judgment in heaven in similar terms be read as accurately describing a true aspect of God's nature.
Variety of contexts
Another reason to believe that the wrath of God is not merely an accommodation is that the descriptions of wrath occur in a wide variety of contexts. It occurs in history writings (Exodus 32), the Law (Leviticus 26), Poetry (Psalm 59), prophetic writing (Isaiah 13), the Gospels (Matthew 11), letters (Romans), and of course the Apocalypse (throughout Revelation).
Wrath is attributed to God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 3).  It is brought against Israel, Gentile nations, mankind as a whole, specific individuals, and the Serpent/Satan (Genesis 3).  It is hard to find a context where God's wrath is not described in some fashion.
Conclusion
The idea that God's wrath is an accommodation stems from a desire to avoid the difficulty in seeing God as angry.  It is often phrased in a condescending fashion such as "ancient people needed to see God that way, but we moderns know better" - either by believers to make God more palpable, or by nonbelievers in an effort to discredit the Bible.
The idea that anger is wrong does not stem from the Bible, however, but rather a man-made sense of the "enlightened man" ideal where man acts rationally and without emotion, or at least without negative emotion.  This "ideal" is directly contradicted by the Bible and also carries unwarranted pride in one's own intellect.  In reality, emotion is an essential part of human nature and logically an essential part of God's nature if we are indeed created in His image.  Just as one cannot fully understand God's infinite, perfect love, one cannot fully comprehend His wrath either.  That, however, does not mean that our terms to describe His wrath do not correspond to a true aspect of God.  Furthermore, that His wrath is real is backed by straightforward exegesis.  Those who wish to say otherwise must twist scripture to an extent that if applied elsewhere could make God's love just as "unreal."


Where does Calmet write when idolatry began? I saw someone mention that Calmet writes that idolatry was started by Ham or his son Canaan. Where can I find this passage in Calmet's writings?

Dictionnaire historique ... de la Bible

Usually when someone cites Calmet, it is a reference to his 1722 Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral de la Bible, published under the English title Dictionary of the Holy Bible.  I will use this English translation for my answer.  It has some additions by an American author, but these are clearly marked in the text, so it remains clear what Calmet wrote originally.

In the entry for Ham, no mention of idolatry is made.   The entry for idol says:

  Writers are not agreed about the origin of idolatry, or the superstitious worship paid to idols and false gods.

However, I did find a couple of mentions in other places.  The entry for Nimrod says:

  To Nimrod is imputed the invention of idolatrous worship paid to men.

And the entry for Teraphim in the expanded edition says:

  Father Kircher, Oedip. AEgypt Synt. iv. eap. s. and after him Ceneus, in his Republic of the Hebrews, maintain that all idolatry came from Egypt; and that the use of teraphim passed from that country into the east; for that Ham, or his son Mizraim, were the inventors of statues.

Assuming that the person mentioned by the OP got the information directly from Calmet, it was probably this passage.  It doesn't actually express Calmet's opinion, though, but could easily be misread to do so (i.e. thinking only the first line of the paragraph comes from Kircher/Ceneus.)

Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres

I also checked Calmet's other major work, Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament.  The volume on Genesis mentions idolatry a number of times, but not in connection with Ham as far as I can tell.  In commentary on chapter 4, he writes:

  On commença alors profaner le nom du Seigneur, en le donnant aux Idoles. C'est la tradition de plusieurs Juifs, que l'idolâtrie commença s'introduire dans le monde sous Enos.

  We then began to profane the Lord's name, giving it the Idols. It is the tradition of many Jews, that idolatry began to break into the world under Enos.

In commentary on chapter 11, he writes:

  Epiphane met l'origine de l'idolâtrie sous Sarug. Les premières idoles ne furent, dit-il, que de simples peintures. Tharé pere d'Abraham introduisit l'usage des statues des figures de métal, de bois de pierres. L'Ecriture nous apprend que Tharé adoré les
  idoles, comme nous le montrerons ci-aprés mais on n'a aucune preuve certaine que ni lui ni Sarug ayent inventé cette pernicieuse coutume.

  Epiphanes puts the origin of idolatry under Serag. The first idols were not, he said, than just paintings. Terah, father of Abraham introduced the use of figurines of metal, wooden, and stones. The Scripture tells us that Terah worshiped idols, as we show here after but we have no certain proof that neither he nor Sarug invented that pernicious custom.

And in commentary on chapter 15, he says:

  il est certain que la plupart de ses ayeux étant morts dans l'idolâtrie font privez du bonheur éternel

  it is certain that most of his [Abraham's] forefathers having died in idolatry are deprived of eternal happiness.

In his commentary on the Book of Wisdom, Calmet has a long essay on the origin of idolatry.  The key paragraph starts:

  Quelques Pères ont cru que Sarug ayeul de Tharé et le septième depuis Noé avoit inventé l'idolâtrie depuis le déluge. Mais on ne trouve aucune preuve de ce sentiment. L'Ecriture dit d'une maniéré assez distincte que Tharé, pere d'Abraham, que Nachor ont été d'abord engagez dans le culte des Idoles; elle insinue la même chose en parlant d'Abraham; ce qui fait juger que ce culte impie n'étoit que trop ancien dans le monde puisqu'il étoit déja si répandu.

  Some Fathers have believed Serag, grandfather of Terah and the seventh from Noah, had invented idolatry from the flood. But we can find no evidence of that suggestion. Scripture tells rather clearly that Terah, father of Abraham, and Nahor were the first engaged in the worship of idols; it insinuates the same thing by speaking of Abraham; which judges this impious worship was only too old in the world since it was already so widespread.

This appears to represent Calmut's view.  A bit later in the same essay, there is a paragraph on Ham:

  D'autres rapportent à Cham, fils de Noé, l'originc des Idoles; d'âutres, à Chanaan son fils. On veut que Cham soit le même que Zoroastre, si fameux parmi les Anciens, & si peu connu par ceux-mêmes qui en parlent. On attribue Cham l'invention de la magie, & des arts dangereux qui y ont rapport. On veut que Chanaan ait répandu la superstition, & le culte des faux Dieux parmi les Phéniciens, & les Cananéens ses descendans, par le moyen desquels il s'est communiqué aisément par tout le monde. Sanchoniathon nous donne une Théologie presque complette des Phéniciens; & on voir par ce qu'il en dit que la fausse Religion a commencé dans ce pays, presque aussi-tôt que le monde. Mais ceux qui nous parlent de Cham, & de Chanaan n'ayant point de preuves positives de ce qu'ils avancent, on ne peut faire aucun fond sur leur rapport. D'ailleurs on fait que Sanchoniathon est un auteur forgé apparemment par Porphyre & qui n'exista jamais.

  Others relate to Ham, son of Noah, the origin of the idols; others, to his son Canaan. They want Ham to be the same as Zoroaster, so famous among the ancients, and so little known by those of whom we speak. They attribute to Ham the invention of magic and the dangerous arts that it entails. They want Canaan to have spread superstition and the cult of false gods among his descendants, the Canaanites and Phoenicians, through whom it is easily communicated to all the world. Sanchoniathon gives us an almost complete theology of the Phoenicians; we see he says the false religion began in this country, almost as early as the world. But since those who speak of Ham and of Canaan have no positive evidence for their claim, one can put no backing on their report. Moreover it is a fact that Sanchoniathon is an author apparently made up by Porphyry who never existed.

Based on the followup comments by the OP, this appears to be where the idea came from.  What Calmet is actually saying is that some scholars attribute the advent idolatry based on a passage in Porphyry's writing which itself apparently quotes someone know as "Sanchoniathon".  Porphyry (Latin Porphyrius) was a pagan philosopher and vocal opponent of Christianity in the late third century.  Calmet, however, basically calls the idea nonsense made up by Porphyry.

Summary

It appears that Calmet believed that idol worship began with Terah or possibly his father, Nahor.  It appears that the passage the OP refers to comes from Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres, but the passage is not expressing Calmet's view, but rather other scholars.  Ultimately, the idea stems from the pagan philosopher Porphyry.


How does Jesus fulfill the offices of Prophet, Priest and King? I have heard that Jesus fulfills the three Jewish "offices" of Prophet, Priest, and King.  What is significant about this, and how specifically does or did Jesus fulfill those offices?

Prophet: In the old testament a prophet was typically one that communed with God to get revelation for the Israelites and was head of the 'church.'
I.E. Moses

  Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Since Christ was head of the church while he was here on earth and received all the revelation from God during that time and passed it on to the 12 apostles he then would have the title of prophet.

King: One of the reasons that Christ was actually rejected by the Jews was because the Messiah of the old testament was supposed to be King of the Jews and come in Glory and overthrow those that oppressed the Israelite nation. Christ was (and is) the Messiah but the scriptures talked of 2 comings of the Messiah one in meekness (as the Son of Man) and one in Glory (his second coming see Malachi 3,4 Also see the whole book of Isaiah. Isaiah talks about both the first and second comings of the Lord and it can be confusing at times to know which he is talking about. Isaiah is also the one who most often refers to Christ as a King or descendant of kings:

  Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Referring to the fact that Jesus through His mother Mary and His adopted father Joseph He is descended from King David. The Jews, of course, were looking for a mighty descendant of David to overthrow the Roman rule of the time.

Priest: Priest has a lot of meanings depending on the denomination, but they often have duties to minister unto the members of a church. If you look at the life of Christ then it is easy to see that He fits this definition of a Priest.


Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times? Paul speaks about the fullness of times (I think, in Romans), upon the arrival of which the grace was manifested in the Son of God, but I wonder why was it needed for the Father to conceal the fact that He had the Son? I mean, the fact that God would've saved humanity through the sacrifice of His own Son might've really needed to be concealed for people to realize through their own history that they were simply not able to match the standards of righteousness needed for eternal life, but why was it needed to hide away from humans the fact the God had the Son?

This is to some extent the idea of progressive revelation, which is a concept that originated in Origen and was fully expounded in Gregory the Theologian's Fifth Theological Oration (which was in defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachai).

This is the purple passage:

  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. (Theo. Ora. V, XXVI)

So the idea that Gregory expounds (which is widely accepted) is that you get the revelation in stages, not all in one go. The doctrine of the Trinity (which for Gregory is the zenith of the Christian faith) would be meaningless outside the history of Israel in which the world had come to know God.

There are hints in the Old Testament, e.g. in the messianic prophecies of Proto-Isaiah, the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah, various psalms (especially the royal ones), perhaps even in certain narrative passages (e.g. Jacob wrestling with God); these hints are revealed fully in the New Testament. Likewise, the New Testament has a foreshadowing of the revelation of the Spirit in the Church, but not a full acknowledgement of the full divinity of the Spirit.

You might also realise that there is a kind of progressive revelation in the NT of the divinity of Christ. If we take the Gospel of Mark, for instance, the knowledge of who Jesus is is a "secret" all the way through, with hints and foreshadowings; it is only on the Cross that he is revealed publicly. (Mark 15.39)


It Still Confuses Me: Who can receive Communion where (Catholic/Orthodox)? I'm fairly well versed on the political history of the Great Schism of the 11th century; however, I can't seem to get it straight when it comes to appropriate receiving of Communion.

Now, I've never seen a priest pull back his hand and say, "Forget it; today you get a blessing," even someone smelling of alcohol. So in practice, assuming one is not committing heresy, at worst receiving Communion inappropriately can be rectified through an act of contrition.

But how is it really supposed to work? I'm Roman Catholic. Can I legitimately go to my friend's Greek Orthodox church and receive Communion?  What about my Russian neighbor baptized Eastern Orthodox? Can he receive Communion at my church? If restricted, is there a permission process outside of RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation in Adults)?

Were the answers to the above questions identical before the schism, and if not, how?

The Catholic Church permits the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic service, but cautions them to observe their own disciplines. For example, OSCCB offers:

  Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).

The Catholic Church permits a Catholic to receive in an Orthodox service if a Catholic service is not available:

  Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.(canon 844 §2)

The appropriate sections of the canon law can be found here.

According to the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox may not receive the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic Church. For example, the OCA offers this answer:

  Further, Orthodox Christianity does not permit its faithful to receive Holy Communion in non-Orthodox communities, whether they be Roman Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. Hence, while Roman Catholicism may extend Eucharistic hospitality to Orthodox Christians, it does not mean that Orthodox Christians are permitted to accept such hospitality.

Further, non-Orthodox can not receive in an Orthodox service:

  Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion.

Before the Great Schism, there was no formal separation between East and West.


Why does Jesus say this about disciples forgiving others their sins? John 20:20-23 ESV Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Why does Jesus tell his disciples "if you forgive the sins of any...if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld"?  Since we are all his disciples, does this mean if I withhold the sins of someone who sinned against me that God will also withhold His forgiveness?  What does this scripture mean?

Let's see if we can analyze the situation and see exactly what transpired in this situation.

John 20:16 through 18 ESV Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"—and that he had said these things to her.

These are the verses just prior to the ones you quoted, and we see here that first of all Jesus had not yet ascended to the father. So apparently there was some reason of which we are unaware that Jesus had to return to the Father and the Holy Spirit, before anything else could happen in the physical realm.
One theory is that he had to go to heaven in his physical body and deposit it somewhere, and reassume his Spiritual being. But that of course is conjecture.
Now let's take a look at verse 19.

John 20:19 ESV On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

Notice that it says on the evening of that same day The importance of this comes from:

John 14:25 through 27 ESV "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you.  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

When Jesus ascended to the father he returned with the Holy Spirit, but knew he could not stay himself since he had to return to where the Father was in order to take his rightful place at the right hand of then power as is indicated in:

Matthew 26:64  Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:69  But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

Now when Jesus breathed on them He was giving them a special form of the Holy Spirit, and a special power to begin the spread of the Gospel.

John 20:21 through 23 ESV Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

notice that he said as the Father sent me so I am sending you, Jesus was giving them special powers just as the Father had given him the ability to forgive sins on Earth.

Matthew 9:2  And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."

and

Matthew 9:5  For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?

It is important to notice that Jesus said *' Your sins are forgiven' and not your sins will be forgiven.
This is important because:

Matthew 9:6  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home."

Remember this was before the Holy Spirit came down to inhabit all Christians.

Act 2:1 through 4  When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Hope this helps.


What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions.

As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point.  However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day.

  And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his
  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was
  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his
  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them
  Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:1-3 ESV

If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?  Did they see the spirit of Moses?  Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes?  Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6?

  When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went
  out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city.
  And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said,
  “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who
  are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open
  his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young
  man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and
  chariots of fire all around Elisha.  2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV

As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well.

I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

In Jude 9, we read:

  But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!”

This is often taught as the body of Moses was taken into heaven.

We also know that Elijah ascended in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind:

  And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven

This would mean that the bodies of those mean would have been kept in heaven, so it could very well be that the two men were actually physically present.


Is Jesus the Creator? The following verses clearly credit Jesus Christ with “Creation.” How do Christians view the role of Christ in Creation?

Ephesians 3:9:

  And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

John 1:1-14:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Colossians 1:16:

  For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

For Christians that are creationists, and that accept the doctrine of the Trinity, yes.

From CARM.org, which believes and advocates both doctrines.  The idea that Jesus is Creator is one of the arguments to support that Jesus is God.

* CARM is not alone in this belief, but I decided to link to only one reference.

To anyone who rejects the idea of Creationism altogether, or to anyone or any group that doesn't believe that Jesus is God, the answer would be "no".


Does Jesus's soul exist before his incarnation? I am referring to clause III in "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen":

  If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was
  united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the
  Virgin, let him be anathema.

This seems inconsistent with an important pillar of orthodox Christianity (not to be confused with eastern orthodoxy) doctrines: the doctrine of Trinity, which states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always exist.

  All three divine Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—share the one
  being of God. The Trinity doctrine explains that Jesus was not created
  sometime prior to his incarnation, but existed eternally as God.

Obviously these two can't be both right, so, how can "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen" and the Trinity doctrine be reconciled from orthodox Christianity point of view? Or the view expressed in "he Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen" is never a part of Christianity teaching?

This is one of the popular misconception of trinity and incarnation.

Jesus as Logos (The Word) is divine. He existed in that form for eternity in the Trinity. But the humanity of Christ did NOT exist before incarnation. Humanity of Christ consists of his human soul and body. Humans are made up of soul and body, so when Christ became human, ie., when he took human flesh (physical) and soul (spiritual) form, he raised it to the level of his divinity. This raising was completed to the fullest extent in his resurrection thru his glorified humanity (body and soul).

  "At the very instant (of incarnation) that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul." - Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii)

Note that God the Father or God the Holy Spirit do NOT have a soul.


Do any church writers compare or contrast Jesus and the burning bush? From the Wikipedia article on Oneness Pentecostalism,

  Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. It equally proclaims that God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in theophanies (such as the burning bush) that he creates or manifests, or in the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ. In the person of Jesus, one sees the last, best, and complete theophany of God.

Is there any existing church writings by church fathers, reformers, or Christian scholars pre-dating Oneness Pentecostalism that speak of a doctrine of Christ as a theophany, using as a comparison the burning bush or other manifestation of God's presence in a similar vein, either supporting or condemning the teaching?

Following the example of St. Justin Martyr (c.100 – 165 AD) who identified the Angel of the Lord with the Logos, theophanies in the Old Testament are said to have been the preincarnate appearances of Christ.

Please see:

Chapter 56. God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father - Dialogue with Trypho | St. Justin Martyr.
Chapter 13.— The Appearance in the Bush. - On the Trinity (Book II) | Augustine of Hippo, Saint and Doctor of the Church.
The Blessed Trinity | New Advent

  Later controversy
  (2) Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 60) Irenaeus (Against
  Heresies IV.20.7-11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; Against
  Praxeas 15-16), Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus
  (To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies
  were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not
  incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is
  largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all
  the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such,
  and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that
  in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father
  effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world;
  through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was
  believed by these writers that, having regard to the present
  disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the
  work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly
  termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou).
  This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The
  function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St.
  John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the
  work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of
  the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.