Do JW teach that Luke 23:43 was corrupted? On what basis? If I recall correctly, in a past conversation with some Jehovah Witnesses, to prove that there is no life after death, I gathered from them that  these words of the LORD on the cross in Luke 23:43 (RSVCE):

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

were at a certain time corrupted and originally, the promise of the LORD read as below:

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Meaning that the good thief would be with the LORD not that Good Friday, but sometime in the future, perhaps at the resurrection of the just.

If it is true the JW teach and witness to this, what is the basis of their claim that the current rendering of the LORD's words is a corruption?

As one who formerly (in ignorance) used to promote the same argument (not being a Jehovah's Witness, but somewhat associated with the Arian theology), the argument is not that the Greek text was corrupted, but rather, that the comma in the English translation should be placed after "today" rather than before it. They are able to make this argument because the original Greek manuscripts, and those for centuries thereafter, lacked any sort of punctuation as well as miniscular letters. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century A.D. The following is the Greek text of Luke 23:43 therein:

As you can see, there are no miniscular letters and, more importantly, no punctuation.

The notion that the Lord Jesus Christ did not go to Paradise (whether it be a place in heaven or in a compartment of Hades) that same day via his soul is important to Jehovah's Witnesses who believe in "soul sleep" or "mortalism." Succinctly stated, they assert that man does not have an [immortal] soul that continues to exist after the death of the body. Rather, man is a soul,(1) and as the dead are said to sleep upon their death, then the soul (man himself) also sleeps.

The Watchtower Online Library entry on "sleep" states,

  Death Compared With Sleep. There is evidence that people sleep in cycles. Each cycle is made up of a deep sleep followed by a lighter sleep. During periods of deep sleep it is very difficult to awaken a person. He is completely unaware of his surroundings and the things that may be occurring about him. There is no conscious activity. Similarly, the dead are “conscious of nothing at all.” (Ec 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4) Therefore death, whether that of a man or of an animal, is like sleep. (Ps 13:3; Joh 11:11-14; Ac 7:60; 1Co 7:39; 15:51; 1Th 4:13) The psalmist wrote: “From your rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the charioteer and the horse have fallen fast asleep.” (Ps 76:6; compare Isa 43:17.) Were it not for God’s purpose to awaken persons from the sleep of death, they would never wake up.

Therefore, since the soul of Jesus, i.e. himself, was dead and buried three days and nights in the grave, the Lord Jesus Christ could not have went anywhere during the interim, including Paradise. If this be the case, they reason, the comma could not logically be placed before the word "today" in the English translation. Furthermore, they assert that those modern Greek texts which place the comma between σοι and σήμερον are simply the result of scribal bias.

To summarize, Jehovah's Witnesses base their assertion on the fact that the original Greek manuscripts lacked punctuation and the placement of the comma by some scribes or translators after the Greek word σήμερον or English word "today" is simply a result of the scribe or translator's bias. Because man is a soul, and man sleeps upon his death, then the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ could not have went anywhere while he was dead for those three days and nights in the grave. This is the summary of their argument.

As you did not request a refutation thereof, I have not included one. But, in the event you edit your original question and request one, I would have no problem including one.

Footnotes

(1) They emphasize Gen. 2:7 for support of this assertion, which states that man became a [living] soul and not that man has a soul.


Is mindfulness meditation banned in Eastern Orthodoxy? Is focusing on your breathing to meditate banned in the Orthodox church, in particular the Serbian Orthodox church?
I know that it's not allowed to not focus on anything at all, because the devil will enter the mind in such cases.
However what if I just focused on my breathing instead, and in case that it's not allowed either, is there an Orthodox alternative to it, which gives the same or better benefits?

Being Eastern Catholic, I’d say you need to be aware that because of the similarities between some eastern spiritual practices and the practices of the orthodox there is sensitivity amongst the Eastern churches of west’s accusations that we engage in pagan meditation techniques.
I think we need to get over our hang ups with the west’s accusations.
Our traditions; including the Jesus prayer is built around the breath.
As long as you remain theologically sound, practice mindfulness as you will.


Can we know anything about Jesus' appearance from the Bible? We know something about Jesus' clothes, that He wore sandals and that He wore a seamless undergarment.

Are there any other clues in the Bible as to His physical appearance?

There isn't much, and that itself is telling.  Isaiah mentions a couple of things prophetically--first, that His appearance was not going to be particularly special:

  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out
  of dry ground;  he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
  and no beauty that we should desire him.  3 He was despised and
  rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
  grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was
  despised, and we esteemed him not.  Isaiah 53:2-3 ESV

and secondly, that He would become pretty marred, which is understood to have occurred at His scourging prior to the crucifixion:

  As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond
  human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind
  Isaiah 52:14 ESV

Aside from these prophecies, there is nothing that really indicates what He looked like.  We do know that children wanted to come to Him, so He likely looked normal enough.  The fact that there isn't anything mentioned about His appearance is an indication that there probably wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

King Saul was head and shoulders above everyone else, and that was notable.  Nothing like this is mentioned about Jesus.


What does the LDS Church teach about the pre-existence of each person prior to conception? I have read somewhere that the LDS teaches that each person existed prior to physical conception.  What are the specifics of this teaching?

This doctrine teaches, in short, that we literally existed prior to birth into mortality on this earth, and were involved in the salvation plan.

See the below excerpts from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism...

  Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence)

  The term "pre-existence," or more accurately, "premortal existence," refers to a period of individual conscious and accountable life before
  birth into mortality on this earth. It is Latter-day Saint doctrine
  that living things existed as individual spirit beings and possessed
  varying degrees of intelligence in an active, conscious spirit state
  before mortal birth and that the spirit continues to live and function
  in the mortal body. The revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies
  have general resemblance to their physical counterparts.

  Council In Heaven

  The Council in Heaven, sometimes called the Grand Council, refers to a
  meeting of God the Father with his spirit sons and daughters to
  discuss the terms and conditions by which these spirits could come to
  earth as physical beings. The terms "Council in Heaven" and "Grand
  Council" do not appear in the scriptures, but are used by the Prophet
  Joseph Smith in referring to these premortal activities, allusions to
  which are found in many scriptures (Job 38:4-7; Jer. 1:5; Rev. 12:3-7;
  Alma 13:3-9; D&C 29:36-38; 76:25-29; Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:23-28; cf.
  Tpjs, pp. 348-49, 357, 365; T&S 4 [Feb. 1, 1843]:82).

  One purpose of the heavenly council was to allow the spirits the
  opportunity to accept or reject the Father's Plan of Salvation, which
  proposed that an earth be created whereon his spirit children could
  dwell, each in a physical body. Such a life would serve as a
  probationary state "to see if they [would] do all things whatsoever
  the Lord their God shall command them" (Abr. 3:25). The spirits of all
  mankind were free to accept or reject the Father's plan but they were
  also responsible for their choice. The Creation, the Fall, mortality,
  the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment were
  contemplated and explained in the council (TPJS, p. 220, 348-50; MD,
  pp. 163-64; see also First Estate). The plan anticipated mistakes from
  inexperience and sin and provided remedies. Many spirits were
  foreordained to specific roles and missions during their mortal
  experience, conditional upon their willingness and faithfulness in the
  premortal sphere and their promised continued faithfulness upon the
  earth. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "Every man who has a
  calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to
  that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world
  was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand
  Council" (TPJS, p. 365; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 1:5; Abr. 3:22-23).

  Although spoken of as a single council, there may have been multiple
  meetings where the gospel was taught and appointments were made. Jesus
  and the prophets were foreordained in the council. A redeemer was to
  perform a twofold mission in redeeming mankind from the physical and
  spiritual deaths brought about by the Fall of Adam and also in
  providing redemption, upon repentance, for sins committed by
  individuals. At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ, known then as the
  great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed
  to follow the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the
  Father's plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency.
  The substitute proposal was also designed to exalt Lucifer above the
  throne of God. The Father's response was, "I will send the first"
  (meaning Jehovah). Lucifer rebelled and became Satan, or "the devil."
  A division developed among the spirits, and no spirits were neutral
  (DS 1:65-66). There was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-8), and the third of
  the hosts who followed Lucifer were cast out (Rev. 12:4; D&C 29:36).
  These rebellious spirits, along with Lucifer, were thrust down to the
  earth without physical bodies (Rev. 12:9; cf. Isa. 14:12-17). The
  Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "The contention in heaven was-Jesus
  said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the
  devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand
  council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil
  rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put
  up their heads for him" (TPJS, p. 357). Heavenly Father and the
  faithful spirits in heaven wept over them (D&C 76:25-29). Satan and
  his followers are still at war with those spirits who have been born
  into mortality (Rev. 12:9; cf. "War in Heaven," p. 788).


How do deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence interpret John 17:5? `And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; [John 17:5, YLT]

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [John 17:5, KJV]

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. [John 17:5, ESV]

At face value, this verse appears to be saying 1) that Jesus already existed before the creation of the world, 2) that He was in a glorified form and 3) that He was with the Father at that time. The top answers on this related question from Hermeneutics.SE arrive at the same conclusion. Of course, deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence do not accept this conclusion, so they must interpret John 17:5 differently. How do they interpret this verse?

Note: a related discussion on Hermeneutics.SE for the interested reader: Is there room for interpreting John 17:5 as Jesus having notional/ideal pre-existence in light of 2 Timothy 1:9?

Ancient Jewish culture had a concept of notional pre-existence. See Jesus’ Pre-Existence – Literal or Ideal? Something could exist in the mind of God (God's plan), and be talked about as existing but in a different sense from how we normally talk about existence - it exists or existed notionally.
So, the question is if Jesus had notional pre-existence but not literal pre-existence, then how can that be squared with the phrase

"with the glory that I had with you before the world was."

at John 17:5. That is, how can something that doesn't have literal existence have glory?
But again, if someone can exist notionally, what makes one think glory can't exist notionally? That is, why can't Jesus existing notionally in God's plan have glory in God's plan? There seems to be no reason why not. It is simply an imposition of our modern ways of thinking upon an ancient Jewish text to say he couldn't. As commentary on John 17:5 in the Revised English Version Bible says

"Jesus was praying that the glory the Old Testament foretold he would
have, and which had been in the mind of God the Father since before
the world began, would come into concretion."

Addendum: the debate about pre-existence is to a large extent a proxy debate which is actually about whether Jesus is God. Unitarians say Jesus is not God, and usually say Jesus did not have literal pre-existence. Trinitarians say Jesus is God, and therefore did have literal pre-existence.
It is interesting to note that almost immediately prior to the verse about Jesus' glory, at John 17:3, Jesus says "You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." It's pretty clear - two entities, God on the one hand and Jesus on the other. If Jesus did pre-exist, according to John's Gospel he wasn't God pre-existing.


Are Job and Jobab the same person? Is there anywhere in the bible that says Job and Jobab is the same person?

Is there anywhere in the bible that says Job and Jobab is the same
person?

Yes and no.
Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles finish the Book of Job with the death of Job at a great age in chapter 42 verse 17.
However the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, has an additional passage known as the Postscript. This additional passage is also in the Russian Orthodox Bible.

and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

According to this Postscript Job and Jobab were one and the same person.


Hymns that talk to God I am looking for hymns that talk to God / Jesus / Holy Spirit instead of about Him or us. Prayer like hymns if it makes sense.
English is not my primary language so I know only one: "Fairest Lord Jesus"
Ant help would be appreciated.
Thanks

This hymn is addressed to all three persons within the One Being of God. It was composed by Anglican bishop Reginald Heber (early 19th century) and is an all-time favourite in Hymns Ancient and Modern.  Here are the lyrics:

Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty!
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!

Holy, Holy, Holy! All the saints adore Thee,
Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, Holy, Holy! though the darkness hide Thee,
Though the eye of sinful man, thy glory may not see:
Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
Perfect in power in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name in earth, and sky, and sea;
Holy, Holy, Holy! merciful and mighty,
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!

Intended for use on Trinity Sunday, the text invites worshipers to join in praising the trinitarian deity, paraphrasing Revelation 4:1–11.
Source: Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty


Is St. Paul celebrating the Holy Eucharist different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church? In the Catholic Church, the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread is just a small host and just a small quantity of wine.
In the scriptures, in letter to the Corinthians, it would seems that the converted gentiles were eating not just a piece of bread and little wine, but it is like a full meal.

So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
1 Cor 11:20-22 NIV

What kind of celebration did St. Paul teach that is different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church?

Is St. Paul celebrating the Holy Eucharist different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church?

  20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
  21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
  22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. - 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 Douay-Rheims 1899

First of all, let us eliminate a misconception. St. Paul is not speaking of the Mass in this passage of Scripture. He is speaking of an agape meal and not the Mass. He admits as much in saying ”it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.” Thus it is not the remembrance of the the Lord’s Last Supper!

St. Paul in reality is describing the meal known as Agape.

  The celebration of funeral feasts in honour of the dead dates back almost to the beginnings of the worship of the departed - that is, to the very earliest times. The dead, in the region beyond the tomb, were thought to derive both pleasure and advantage from these offerings. The same conviction explains the existence of funeral furniture for the use of the dead. Arms, vessels, and clothes, as things not subject to decay, did not need to be renewed, but food did; hence feasts at stated seasons. But the body of the departed gained no relief from offerings made to his shade unless these were accompanied by the obligatory rites. Yet the funeral feast was not merely a commemoration; it was a true communion, and the food brought by the guests was really meant for the use of the departed. The milk and wine were poured out on the earth around the tomb, while the solid food has passed in to the corpse through a hole in the tomb.

  The use of the funeral feast was almost universal in the Græco-Roman world. Many ancient authors may be cited as witnesses to the practice in classical lands. Among the Jews, averse by taste and reason to all foreign customs, we find what amounts to a funeral banquet, if not the rite itself; the Jewish colonies of the Dispersion, less impervious to surrounding influences, adopted the practice of fraternal banquets. If we study the texts relative to the Supper, the last solemn meal taken by Our Lord with His disciples, we shall find that it was the Passover Supper, with the changes wrought by time on the primitive ritual, since it took place in the evening, and the guests reclined at the table. As the liturgical meal draws to a close, the Host introduces a new rite, and bids those present repeat it when He shall have ceased to be with them. This done, they sing the customary hymn and withdraw. Such is the meal that Our Lord would have renewed, but it is plain that He did not command the repetition of the Passover Supper during the year, since it could have no meaning except on the Feast itself. Now the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles state that the repast of the Breaking of Bread took place very often, perhaps daily. That which was repeated was, therefore, not the liturgical feast of the Jewish ritual, but the event introduced by Our Lord into this feast when, after the drinking of the fourth cup, He instituted the Breaking of Bread, the Eucharist. To what degree this new rite, repeated by the faithful, departed from the rite and formulæ of the Passover Supper, we have no means, at the present time, of determining. It is probable, however, that, in repeating the Eucharist, it was deemed fit to preserve certain portions of the Passover Supper, as much out of respect for what had taken place in the Cœnaculum as from the impossibility of breaking roughly with the Jewish Passover rite, so intimately linked by the circumstances with the Eucharistic one.

  This, at its origin, is clearly marked as funerary in its intention, a fact attested by the most ancient testimonies that have come down to us. Our Lord, in instituting the Eucharist, used these words: "As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this chalice, you shall show forth the Lord's Death". Nothing could be clearer. Our Lord chose the means generally used in His time, namely: the funeral banquet, to bind together those who remained faithful to the memory of Him who had gone. We must, however, be on our guard against associating the thought of sadness with the Eucharistic Supper, regarded in this light. If the memory of the Master's Passion made the commemoration of these last hours in any measure sad, the glorious thought of the Resurrection gave this meeting of the brethren its joyous aspect. The Christian assembly was held in the evening, and was continued far into the night. The supper, preaching, common prayer, the breaking of the bread, took up several hours; the meeting began on Saturday and ended on Sunday, thus passing from the commemoration of the sad hours to that of the triumphant moment of the Resurrection and the Eucharistic feast in very truth "showed forth the Lord's Death", as it will until He come". Our Lord's command was understood and obeyed.

  Certain texts refer to the meetings of the faithful in early times. Two, from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20-22, 33, 34), allow us to draw the following conclusions: The brethren were at liberty to eat before going to the meeting; all present must be in a fit condition to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, though they must not eat of the funeral supper until all were present. We know, from two texts of the first century, that these meetings did not long remain within becoming bounds. The agape, as we shall see, was destined, during the few centuries that it lasted, to fall, from time to time, into abuses. The faithful, united in bodies, guilds, corporations or "collegia", admitted coarse, intemperate men among them, who degraded the character of the assemblies. These Christian "collegia" seem to have differed but little from those of the pagans, in respect, at all events, of the obligations imposed by the rules of incorporation. There is no evidence available to show that the collegia from the first undertook the burial of deceased members; but it seems probable that they did so at an early period. The establishment of such colleges gave the Christians an opportunity of meeting in much the same way as the pagans did - subject always to the many obstacles which the law imposed. Little feasts were held, to which each of the guests contributed his share, and the supper with which the meeting ended might very well be allowed by the authorities as a funerary one. In reality, however, for all faithful worthy of the name, it was a liturgical assembly. The texts, which it would take too long to quote, do not allow us to assert that all these meetings ended with a celebration of the Eucharist. In such matters sweeping generalizations should be avoided. At the outset it must be stated that no text affirms that the funeral supper of the Christian colleges must always and everywhere be identified with the agape, nor does any text tell us that the agape was always and everywhere connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. But subject to these reservations, we may gather that under certain circumstances the agape and the Eucharist appear to form parts of a single liturgical function. The meal, as understood by the Christians, was a real supper, which followed the Communion; and an important monument, a fresco of the second century preserved in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, at Rome, shows us a company of the faithful supping and communicating. The guests recline on a couch which serves as a seat, but, if they are in the attitude of those who are at supper, the meal appears as finished. They have reached the moment of the Eucharistic communion, symbolized in the fresco by the mystical fish and the chalice.

  Tertullian has described at length (Apolog., vii-ix) these Christian suppers, the mystery of which puzzled the Pagans, and has given a detailed account of the agape, which had been the subject of so much calumny; an account which affords us an insight into the ritual of the agape in Africa in the second century. - Agape (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism? Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?

Dispensational Premillennialism is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a tribulation, then the millennium. (something like that. Disp. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question)

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.

This question should probably be answered by somebody that believes in dispensationalism as well. (Obviously, from that sentence you all know that I do not.) Nevertheless I will venture a "pre-answer". I will not discuss passages of scripture, that taken together might be understood as supporting the view.

I'd like to put some focus on the hermeneutics behind this view. How do you read the Bible in order to come up with this specific interpretation? I think the following points apply:

Unless there is a compelling reason to interpret a passage differently, all scripture should be read literally. The question of genre is not high on the agenda. When reading texts about eschatology in the Bible, they are all considered a topic, not a genre.
Thus, there exist no specific apocalyptic genre that needs special consideration. The question what the texts in Revelations, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc meant to the original hearers is therefore low on the agenda. Instead all focus is on how we today can harmonize various sayings in different passages having access to the finished Bible.
Specifically, numbers telling passage of time are to be understood literally. Saying that a number only has a symbolic meaning is out of the question.
When there is a possible difference between various passages in the scripture, the main solution is not to re-interpret the passage as such, but to apply them in different phases. Thus the second coming is a 2-phase event, all time, including the Old Testament time, is divided in different "dispensations" during which God uses partly different means to help mankind.
The "natural Israel" is of utmost importance when God is shaping history. The church age is basically just a phase. It's importance is primarily in preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth. For the salvation of the individual, this is of course very important, but it is not really important for God's rule of the earth.

Using this hermeneutic approach one can dive in at various places in the Bible to explain Dispensational Premillennialism, since the teaching relies on how to fit different parts of the Bible together. The Bible read this way is (among other things) a puzzle and the pre-trib view is its solution.

(Yes, my bias does show through in this answer. I hope, however, that it does not mean I have explained anything in a false way. I have read substantial amounts of text written by pre-trib theologians.)


What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross? What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross?

What you're talking about is called "substitutionary atonement"  There are several references that support this viewpoint.

Isaiah 53:4-6

  Surely he has borne our griefs
      and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,
      smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions;
      he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
      and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray;
      we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
      the iniquity of us all.

2 Corinthians 5:21

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
  might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24

  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to
  sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

1 Corinthians 15:3

  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
  that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures

Romans 4:23-25 (Jesus was delivered up for our sins, and raised for our justification)

  But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake
  alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him
  who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our
  trespasses and raised for our justification.

1 John 4:10 (Propitiation: sufficient substitution for our sins)

  In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and
  sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 Peter 3:18 (Christ suffered for sins, though he was righteous, so that we may be considered righteous)

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the
  unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
  flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Galatians 3:13 (Christ became the curse for us, taking our penalty)

  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for
  us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

Galatians 2:20-21 (If salvation is by works, then Christ's death was for nothing)

  I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but
  Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by
  faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do
  not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the
  law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Romans 3:21-26 (The righteousness is apart from the law, and given based on Christ's blood)

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the
  law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the
  righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
  believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall
  short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift,
  through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward
  as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to
  show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
  passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the
  present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one
  who has faith in Jesus.


Why are some denominations so against the idea of personal revelation as a source of Truth? In the spirit of On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol? and Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view

First, what this question isn't:

It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today.  (That's been asked already).
It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is valid or true.
It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason.  As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this.

Put other way, this is not a "Truth" question.  It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view.  In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace?

Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth.  Likewise, the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets, as do others.

Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon, and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous.  Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why dangerous?

According to the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Infallibility we already have completed revelation from God in the Bible, and this revelation is sufficient for us to know all that God desires of/for us: "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16

The problem is that if someone says God told him something (even if it's not unbiblical), I have no real way of knowing that he is telling the truth (unless it is clearly unbiblical, in which case I know that he is either lying or deceived).  In fact, this is why there were signs and miracles at the founding of the Church (before the completion of Scripture): to demonstrate that the apostles' teaching was indeed Truth from God.


Early Christian Reaction to Muhammad How did Christian react to Muhammad's teachings when they first encountered them? Did they view him as a Christian heretic like Arius? Was the a council to oppose them?

The most notable early Christian writing that I am aware of was by John of Damascus (676-749).  In Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin he claims that the basis of Mohammed's fundamental teachings came from an Arian monk:

  There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day
  prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the
  Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham
  of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
  Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from
  Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the
  angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’  These used to be idolaters
  and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own
  language they called Khabár, which means great.  And so down to the
  time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to
  the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their
  midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments
  and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,  devised
  his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces
  of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain
  book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some
  ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as
  an object of veneration.

The rest of the text can be found here.

Some say that the iconoclast heresy in Byzantium arose because certain Christians were envious of the material success of surrounding Moslems and surmised that their practices - especially their rejection of depictions of human form - were earning them God's favor.  John of Damascus was one of the most vocal critics of the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian.  Ironically, John wrote his Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images while under the protection of a nearby moslem caliph.

[Note:  This question seems almost indistinguishable from the related question, so I posted the same answer in both places, expecting perhaps that one of the two questions will eventually be deleted.]


Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture? From the very limited research that I've done thus far, it seems that the RCC does not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture. I'm not positive that this is true, though it seems to be.

The meaning of "perspicuity of Scripture":

  Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Wikipedia)

Am I right, and if so, why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to such a belief?

Perspicuity probably isn't gonna be a terribly popular word in the Catholic world. The Catholic Church doesn't hold any scripture to be self-interpreting, not even the things that seem obvious; this is a safeguard to preserve one authentic teaching authority of the Church.
In a document promoting unity between Christian Churches in the 1970's this difference was pointed out between all denominations started after the Reformation:

In the history of the Church, the difference between Catholics and Reformed has always focussed on the alternative: “Scripture and Tradition” and “Scripture only”. Catholics stressed the need for and the authority of the Church’s teaching office in the interpretation of Scripture, whereas the Reformed declared that Scripture interprets itself and, as God’s Word, must be strictly distinguished from all human tradition, desiring in this way to do justice not only to the doctrine of justification but also to the total witness of the Old and New Testaments.

THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN CHURCH AND WORLD
and also, a difference between Evangelicals and  Catholics in particular:

Evangelicals acknowledge the wisdom of listening to the Church and its teachers, past and present, as they seek to understand God's Word, but they insist that each believer must be free to exercise his or her personal responsibility before God, in hearing and obeying his Word. While the Church's interpretations are often helpful, they are not finally necessary because Scripture, under the Spirit's illumination, is self-interpreting and perspicuous (clear).
Thus, contemporaneity has come to mean different things in our two communities. Each recognizes that the Word of God must be heard for and in our world today. For Roman Catholics God's Word is contemporary in the sense that it is heard and interpreted within the living Church. For Evangelicals it is contemporary in the sense that its truth has to be applied, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to the modern world.
THE EVANGELICAL-ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE ON MISSION, 1977-1984

Catholics have always held there to be three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching.  These three in concert comprise the deposit of Faith.  I don't think you'll find evidence to the contrary in the Middle Ages or before about scripture being easy to read.  Then, it was definitely up to the Priests to interpret.  Passion plays and art were a perspicuous witness to the Gospel, but so were Priests, just like the Apostles were before them.
And the idea that Sacred Scripture is so easy to understand that any dummy can do it is shown as unbiblical by the Bible itself.  When Philip popped down for a visit in Ethiopia, the eunuch (who was probably no dummy) said.  "How can I understand what I'm reading (talking about Isaiah) unless some man shows me" (Acts 8:31).  And St. Peter says that teachings are hard to be understood by the unlearned and the unstable - and they interpret them to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).  Hopefully, I'm not misinterpreting that.
Even here, Catholics are wise to say that this is "just my opinion" of sacred scripture (even though I pulled it right out of "A Textual Concordance of the Holy Scriptures") because we don't have any teaching faculty in the Church.


What is "new" in the New Perspective on Paul? What specially is new and different in the "New Perspective on Paul" movement? How can the differences to the "old" perspective be summarized?

Note: Please don't make this question about defending one view over the other, only concisely describing any significant differences between them.

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion -- as most Reformed teachings claim -- but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.


Is Abraham in heaven? If Jesus brought everlasting life and Abraham died before the coming of Jesus (and in fact before Judaism), would we therefore expect to see Abraham in heaven? What passages in the bible direct us to an answer?

Jesus Himself said Abraham was in heaven, in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus:

Luke 16:19-31 NIV1984 (I have highlighted the six references to Abraham.)
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”


What is the biblical meaning of "sanctification"? I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth.

But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means "to make holy," which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture.

So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture?

The word "sanctification" derives from the Latin noun "sanctificio".  This original Latin word means "to separate and set aside" (source--using the WayBack Machine).

To me, this rings of Isreal being set aside as God's holy people. (As seen in Deut. 7:6-8 and Leviticus 20:26)   Also, it seems to reverberate in the New Testament with Jesus' words in the gospel of John.

John 17:16 (NIV)

  16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

Sanctification, in this sense, is to be set apart from the world--to be a different people.

However, this original Latin word was actually translated from Greek.  It's not actually the source word.  The original Greek word is often translated into English as "wash" or "cleanse".

This implies that we are to be washed of our sins.

There's an excellent use of this in Ephisians 5:25-26.  The NIV translates this as "cleanse"

Ephisians 5:25-26 (NIV)

  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the
  washing with water through the word

(emphasis added)

However, the original King James uses the word "sanctify"

Ephisians 5:25-26 (KJV)

  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

  26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word

(emphasis added)

This cleansing from sin can also be seen in the Old Testamant.

Leviticus 16:30 (KJV)

  30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to
  cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

It should be noted, though, that the translation of "sanctify" in the Old Testament didn't suffer from this same duality of definition.  It's just an example of how God's holy people should be both "set apart" and "cleansed".

So, there is kind of a two-fold definition.  My source article puts it well:

  In position believers are eternally set apart for God by redemption and are positionally, therefore, holy and righteous from the moment of believing.
  In experience the believer is being sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit and scripture.

(emphasis in the original)


How does Original Sin come back in man even after being washed at the time of baptism? According to Catholic thought, if we are washed of Original Sin at the time of baptism, why do we transmit Original Sin to our children? In other words, how is it that my child is born with Original Sin when I was freed from Original Sin at the time of my baptism?

I think you misunderstood the role of Baptism in Catholicism.

Cathecism of the Catholic Church-1263 says

  [1263] By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal
  sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been
  reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom
  of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of
  sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

It doesn't say original sin is washed away, it says it is forgiven. Forgiven doesn't mean you don't have original sin anymore; it only means your sins are forgiven.

Our sins cannot be washed away by merely washing with water nor any kind of Baptism. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can wash away our sins.

  1 John 1:7 (NIV) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
  we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son,
  purifies us from all sin.

  Revelation 7:14 (NKJV) And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said
  to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and
  washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

  Revelation 22:14 (DRA) Blessed are they that wash their robes in the
  blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and
  may enter in by the gates into the city.


In light of the list found in Isaiah 11:1-3, why are there seven gifts of Holy Spirit and not six? The patristic authors1 enumerate the following list of gifts or emanations of the Holy Spirit among other lists of moral virtues. According these authors, these qualities are completely demonstrated in Christ and are also demonstrated by believers in the Church. They are

Wisdom,
Understanding,
Counsel,
Fortitude,
Knowledge,
Piety, and
Fear of the Lord.

According to a number of sources, the list of these Spiritual gifts or virtues comes from Isaiah 11:1-3 (emphasis mine):

(KJV) And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

It appears that only six of the seven gifts listed above appear in this verse. Why is piety also included in the list to make seven gifts?

1. For example, see Victorinus, Commentarii in Apocalypsim Iohannis 1, 4: Septiformem spiritum in Esaia legimus '(Esa., XI, 2), spiritum' videlicet 'sapientiae et intellectus, consilii et fortitudinis, scientiae et pietatis, spiritum timoris Domini.' Authors such Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, and John Cassian all speak of the gifts with familiarity.

According to Roman Catholicism, believers receive these gifts at baptism, which are then made more perfect by the rite of Confirmation. Consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1285,

"The reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace." For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, the baptized are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.

In order to determine the number of gifts observed by the patristic authors, consider the Vulgate Latin text of the verses you mentioned:

et egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet
et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini spiritus [1]sapientiae et [2]intellectus spiritus [3]consilii et [4]fortitudinis spiritus [5]scientiae et [6]pietatis
et replebit eum spiritus [7]timoris Domini non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit neque secundum auditum aurium arguet

In the Latin, you'll see seven gifts, the sixth of which is pietatis or piety, and the seventh of which is timoris Domini, or fear of the Lord. In most English language Bibles (NIV, NET, ESV, NASB, KJV, et al), the original words for piety and fear of the Lord are both translated as "fear of the Lord", and so the seven distinct gifts are not preserved.


What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.? There are a variety of terms used in the Catholic Church to refer to particular statements or beliefs. Here are a number of some such terms:

Dogma
Doctrine
Infallible statement
Infallible papal teaching
Statement made ex cathedra
Definitively proposed doctrine
Authoritative statement

Are any of these the same? Are all infallible statements papal teachings? Are all doctrines dogmas? What exactly are the differences between these?

Most of these terms are used interchangeably. So a clear cut definition may not be possible.

Doctrine: The official teachings of the Catholic church contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment of the Church as divinely revealed truths. This may or may not be a dogma. Example, Mary, Co-Redemptrix
Dogma: Doctrines that are proclaimed formally by the Church as revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person). Those who do not believe in a Dogma, is considered to have left the church, on their own accord.
Statement made ex cathedra: This Literally means "Statement made from the chair". It is a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Pope. I Vatican Council says that when Pope makes a statement ex cathedra, he does so in his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians. (Session IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv). Example: when declaring and defining a dogma, Pope makes that statement ex cathedra.
Infallible statement: Statements that are considered to be exempt or immune to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, by a special Divine assistance, church/pope is preserved from making an error when defining a dogma in the matters of faith and morals. All statements (with usual conditions) made by the Pope ex-cathedra are Infallible. But this is not necessarily reserved only to the pope. The teaching of the Magisterium of the Church are also considered infallible.
Definitively proposed doctrine: In simpler terms, this is implicitly accepted doctrines which are derived from previously revealed doctrines/dogmas. These are not articles of faith by themselves, but are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith. That is, if you do not believe them, then there might arise doctrinal inconsistency in faith. These doctrines may not have been officially proposed by the Church as formally revealed. And as it is usually the case, if some one inside the Church opposes its validity, these doctrines could, by dogmatic development, one day be declared to be revealed.

For example: The declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations. You don't have to believe that Anglican ordinations are invalid to be a catholic, but If you believe Anglican ordinations are valid ordinations, then there will be a problem with what you believe constitutes a valid ordination. As a valid ordination requires to be performed by a person with valid apostolic succession.
Other examples include doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men, the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution, fornication and euthanasia.

On Infallible papal teaching and Authoritative statement, I don't have idea I am sorry. May be someone else can help.

Sources:

Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei
Dogma (Catholic Encyclopedia)


What is the farthest back an LDS Member has traced his family tree? Knowing how important genealogy research is to LDS leads me to wonder how far back any of us could trace our family tree. Have any LDS members been able to trace back to any biblical characters?

Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist, of the Church Genealogical Department stated, in regards to the possibility of accurately tracing back to Adam and Eve, that the answer is No.  The reason being that European royal genealogy before 500s A.D. Cannot be verified.  This would exclude biblical characters as well.

See
https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-tree-adam-eve/

https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-tree-adam-eve-part-2/

It's probably not possible/easy to know who has traced the furthest back since there are so many people doing it and their records aren't all public.


What is the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit? According to Trinitarian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three persons (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who share the same essence/nature (ὁμοούσιος). What is the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit (i.e., that the Holy Spirit is a "person")?

Here are four common defenses of this doctrine:

The masculine pronoun in Greek is applied to the Holy Spirit even when not required by Greek grammar
The Holy Spirit is shown to be in a coordinating relationship with other persons, such as the Father and Son, as well as humans, suggesting that he also is a Person
The Holy Spirit has personal attributes and performs personal activities
Biblical distinctions between the Holy Spirit and the "power of God"

Masculine pronoun applied to the Holy Spirit
There are several places in the Gospel of John where the masculine pronoun he (Greek ekeinos) is apparently applied to the Holy Spirit, despite the Greek word for spirit being neuter (pneuma).  Many modern scholars have taught that such examples are evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit.1  For example, John 14:26:

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. (ESV, emphasis added)

Other examples of this are John 15:26 and especially 16:13–14.  However, some trinitarian scholars reject this argument as specious, saying that the rules of Greek grammar are not controverted in these verses: the masculine pronoun, they argue, can legitimately refer to the masculine noun Helper, not Spirit, even though (particularly in John 16) they are not in close proximity.2
Relationships with other persons
A number of passages indicate that the Holy Spirit is in a coordinate relationship with the Father and Son.  Thus, if they are Persons, then so is the Holy Spirit.  For example, Matthew 28:19:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Other examples of this include 1 Cor 12:4–6, 2 Cor 13:14, Eph 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2.
The Spirit is also presented in parallel with human persons (the Apostles) in Acts 15:28:

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements (ESV)

The Gospel of John also indicates that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son, through its language of the Father (John 14:16) and Son (John 15:26) sending the Spirit:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper (John 14:16, ESV)

The word "another" in this verse, plus the application of the same Greek word for Helper (parakletos) to Jesus in 1 John 2:1, further establishes the personhood of the Holy Spirit by indicating that the Holy Spirit's role mirrors that of Jesus in this significant respect.
Personal attributes and activities
The Holy Spirit is seen having attributes and performing activities commonly attributed to persons.  For example, he is called the Helper or Counselor and performs the activity of bearing witness in John 15:26:

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

The "Helper" language is also used in John 14:16 and 16:7, and scholars argue that this word cannot be considered to be merely "the name of any abstract influence."3
Other personal activities performed by the Holy Spirit include:

Teaching (Luke 12:12)
Interceding (Romans 8:26–27)
Having a mind of his own: (Romans 8:27)
Searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10)
Knowing the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11)
Distributing gifts (1 Cor 12:11)
Forbidding activities (Acts 16:6–7)
Speaking (Acts 8:29, 13:2)
Evaluating actions (Acts 15:28)
Being grieved (Isa 63:10, Eph 4:30)

Among these, Romans 8:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:11 make it particularly clear that the Holy Spirit has a mind and will: attributes of personhood.
Not simply the power of God
Finally, it is widely argued that the Holy Spirit being merely the "power of God" doesn't make sense in light of verses like Luke 4:14:

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee (ESV)

If the Holy Spirit is the power of God, then this would read, "And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God to Galilee," and the first "power" would be redundant. Other examples of this include Acts 10:38, Rom 15:13, and 1 Cor 2:4.
Summary
The first of these four arguments is certainly the weakest, though some scholars who interact with the counterargument still maintain it with respect to at least John 16:13–14.  Nonetheless, defenses of the personhood of the Spirit most safely rest on the biblical evidence of the Holy Spirit's relationship with other persons, his personal attributes and activities, and indications that he is not merely the "power of God."

This presentation is largely an expansion of Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, 1.1.8.  Other helpful resources include Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, chapter 14 and Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, 1.1.8.1.

A huge number of scholars have made this argument, including Berkhof, Hodge, and Grudem in the sections mentioned above.  An extensive list is also contained in the paper referenced below, beginning on page 67.
Naselli and Gons, "Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit," DBSJ 16 (2011).  The analysis of the common argument begins on page 79.  A list of adherents to the counterargument begins on page 83.  An example of a theologian interacting with the counterargument and rejecting it is found on page 87.
The quote is from Berkhof, 1.1.8.


How do non-trinitarians interpret Philippians 2:5-8? Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV):

5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8     he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

How do non-trinitarians (and those who deny the divinity of Jesus in general) interpret this passage?

There are many possibilities here. As @Dottard notes, 'non-trinitarian' encompasses a large number of views. IMO it is very difficult to maintain a position that Jesus isn't divine ("those who deny the divinity of Jesus in general") while also taking the Gospels seriously - the question rather is whether Jesus is God properly speaking or divine in some significant and unique sense. So it's important to phrase the question correctly, and eliding this difference is creating a 'false dichotomy' of God or (typical) human.
@User47952 makes lots of good points, but my basic approach with this text would be to note the dog that doesn't bark.
If St. Paul thought Jesus was God, why wouldn't he straightforwardly say so? Why would we be straining at passages that talk about how Jesus was 'in the form of God'? Why not just say 'Jesus is God'? Why wouldn't St. Paul say 'God the Son' instead of 'Son of God' (as in Romans 1:4), or something similar?
One answer from a non-trinitarian perspective is straightforward - Jesus is a divine being - privileged as an intermediary and given authority from God, seated at the 'right hand' (such as Matthew 26:64) of God - but not God. Because he is a divine being, he is in some sense equal to God, but the emphasis is put on some sense, and this is exactly why we don't see outright claims that Jesus = God in the New Testament.


What problems, if any, do Swedenborgians have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Swedenborgians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how Swedenborg himself viewed the creed.  If he did not address the Apostles' Creed in his writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of prominent Swedenborgian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals.

Swedenborg himself had no problems with the Apostles' Creed and he did address it in his writings.

  It is to be observed, that in the Apostles’ Creed it is said, “I
  believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit”;
  in the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one God, the Father, in one Lord
  Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit,” thus only in one God; ... 1

It is the Athanasian Creed with which he had a problem.

  ... but in the Athanasian Creed it is, “In God the Father, God the Son,
  and God the Holy Spirit,” thus in three Gods. But whereas the authors
  and favorers of this creed clearly saw that an idea of three Gods
  would unavoidably result from the expressions therein used, therefore,
  in order to remedy this, they asserted that one substance or essence
  belongs to the three; but still there arises from thence no other
  ideas, than that there are three Gods unanimous and agreeing together:
  for when it is said of the three that their substance or essence is
  one and indivisible, it does not remove the idea of three, but
  confounds it, because the expression is a metaphysical, and the
  science of metaphysics, with all its ingenuity, cannot of three
  Persons, each whereof is God, make one; it may need make of them one
  in the mouth, but never in idea. 1

You can find many of his views concerning creeds and trinity in Canons (1769).

Here's just one statement summary therein.

  Chapter V. The trinity of persons in the divinity is from the council
  of Nice, and was derived thence into the catholic church and [the
  churches] after it, and is therefore to be called the Nicene Trinity.
  But the trinity of God in one person, the Lord God the Saviour, is
  from Christ himself, and was thence in the Apostolic Church, and
  therefore is to be called the Christian Trinity; and this trinity of
  God is the Trinity of the new church. 2 (emphasis added)

1. The Teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, Volume 2 by Emanuel Swedenborg (Simon and Schuster, Feb 4, 2013)
2. Canons by Emanuel Swedenborg, (1769) tr. by John Whitehead (1914)


Was the Synagogue of Satan the same as the Synagogue of Libertines? If the Synagogue of Libertines (Acts 6: 9) was Hellenist it would not have been regarded as properly Jewish by conservative Jews.

  Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the
  synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of
  them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (Acts 6:9, KJV)

Is this what Revelation 2:9 and Rev. 3: 9 talks about?

  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)
  and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not,
  but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9, KJV)

  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are
  Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and
  worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
  (Revelation 3:9, KJV)

"Synagogue of Satan", according to theologians, may refer to -

Assembly of Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and persecuted the Christians

  (Pulpit Commentary)

  We have here strong evidence of the early date of the Apocalypse.
  Throughout this book "Jew" is an honourable name for the worshippers
  of the Christ; "Gentiles," a name of reproach for those who oppose the
  Christ. [...] These persecutors of the Church of Smyrna are Jews in
  name, but in reality are rather Gentiles - opponents, and not
  worshippers of the Messiah. (source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9)

Heretics who professed Christianity

  (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

  they professed Christianity in words, but in works denied it; they
  were men of bad principles and practices, and both blasphemed the ways
  and doctrines of Christ themselves, and caused them to be blasphemed
  by others also; they were false Christians, nominal professors, and
  shunned persecution for the Gospel; who were not what they would be
  thought to be: these were the broachers of heresies in this period of
  time (source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9)

"Synagogue of Libertines" was probably the assembly of the Freedmen from Rome, descendants of the Jews enslaved by Pompey after his conquest of Judaea in 63 BC.  (source). They were persecuting the Christians, they were responsible for the death of Stephen, the first martyr.

Synagogue of Libertines were Hellenistic Jews and were persecuting Christians. If "Synagogue of Satan" means "Jews who reject Christ", then we can deduce that "Synagogue of Libertines" was indeed one of the Synagogues of Satan mentioned in Rev. 2: 9 and Rev. 3: 9.


Who Killed the giant Goliath? We read in 1 Samuel 17: "David killed Goliath"

  And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the
  Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the
  Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard
  them. 1 Samuel 17:23 ASV

(...)

  Then David ran, and stood over the
  Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof,
  and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines
  saw that their champion was dead, they fled. 1 Samuel 17:51 ASV

But we read in 2 Samuel 21: "Elhanan killed the giant Goliath"

  And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the
  son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the
  staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 2 Samuel 21:19 ASV

So, who killed Goliath?

According to this article the discrepancy is most likely a simple copyist error of a single letter causing confusion.  David killed Goliath, and Elhannan killed Goliath's brother. 1 Chronicles 20:5 (which repeats this verse) says:

  5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

There are no serious biblical inerrantists (and I do not consider myself an inerrantist at all) that say that there are no copy errors in the bible. Inerrancy is only ascribed to the original manuscripts. A quick reading of a good apparatus will reveal this to be a common (and minor) copy error, as understood even by an inerrantist.


How was the earth divided? (Gen. 10:25) Gen. 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Through some simple math, we know that Peleg was born 101 years after the flood.
I had assumed that this verse meant a demographic division, but I don't think there could be that many people on the earth yet (assuming only 8 survived the flood). I got this idea from v. 32:

These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

I understand that the name Peleg has some relation to division, but I'm not too well-versed on the original Hebrew meaning.
Does this verse signify a physical division (like breakup of Pangaea), or something more like a demographic division?

The explanation that I'm familiar with would indicate that this is referring to the division of cultures and tongues at the time of the Tower of Babel.

I can't take credit for the answer on my own.  The explanation that makes the most sense to me is the one found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/peleg

  Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg
  (meaning division) ‘for in his days was the earth divided’. Some
  suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time.
  However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to
  occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological
  violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic
  Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred
  during the Flood. 1

  The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates
  this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel
  event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English ‘earth’ can have a variety
  of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets
  Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the
  biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood
  occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a
  hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this
  happened? The answer is a resounding yes.

(Much more follows - visit the link for the full article).


What is the biblical basis for Jesus' pre-incarnate existence? Basically the opposite of this question. What are the most notable biblical passages that believers in the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus resort to to defend their position? How do they usually defend their interpretation of those passages against rebuttals from critics?

Jesus repeatedly says things to the effect of having come from the Father, being sent by the Father, having come from the Father and into the world:

I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father. - John 16:28

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. - John 8:42

Folks will argue that verses like these indicate the creative source only, i.e. "Came from God" means created by God at the incarnation.  However, the verses connect separate ideas.  I came from the Father and have come into the world, (and) now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.
Leaving one location and coming to another is mirrored in the return:  Came from God to the world, leaving the world and going to God  The parenthetical and above which appears in some English translations is actually again in the Greek and indicates a renewal or repetition of the action.  He's repeating Himself so that we get it.
The same mirror principle is related in Acts 1:11:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Another example of Jesus returning to where He was before is found in what He asked his disciples:

Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? - John 6:62

"Son of Man" being Jesus' favorite self designation.  And there is direct confession of pre-existence with the Father from Jesus Himself:

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. - John 17:5 ESV

And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee - YLT

Regardless of how "before the world was" is understood it is evident that Jesus is claiming to have had existence prior to that event and to have been in possession of shared glory with the Father.  As long as "before the world was" is placed prior to the incarnation (where else could it be placed) Jesus is claiming His own pre-incarnational existence.


What was C.S. Lewis referring to in The Weight of Glory? I was searching for another, unrelated quote, but I came across this one, and a particular statement intrigued me.

  The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not IN them, it only came THROUGH them, and what came through them was longing. These things--the beauty, the memory of our own past--are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself, they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never visited. Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairy tales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness which has been laid upon us for nearly a hundred years. Almost our whole education has been directed to silencing this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modern philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth.
  - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

The bolded portion is what intrigued me. What began a hundred years before C.S. Lewis wrote this? What might he be referring to?

If you check out "The Abolition of Man" you'll get an understanding of what he means. He's basically saying that modern education has a tendency to move our eyes from the joy that is set before us in heaven, to the created things of this world.  In Lewis' time (think mid-1940's) the "modern education" system which he decries was more or less about a century old.

Basically, Lewis' beef with modern education is that it teaches our heavenly intuitions, imaginations, and feelings, are excluded by modern techniques. He wants to see us being whole creatures capable of apprehending the "shadows of heaven" that is joy.


Paul's knowledge of Jannes and Jambres the magicians of Egypt Per Paul in:

2 Timothy 3:8 ESV

  Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the
  truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.

Which is cross referenced to:

Exodus 7:11 ESV

  Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the
  magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts.

and also

Acts 13:8 ESV

  But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed
  them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.

Titus 1:16

  They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are
  detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

How did Paul know the names of the Magicians since they appear to not be mentioned anywhere else in the bible by name?  And how was this cross reference made (how do we really know that he's talking about the same story)?

The only link that I can find is from the Damascus Document which I was led to from reading Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions by Axel Graupner, Michael Wolter.

I'm going to ask this over at Hermeneutics too.  However I feel that this is an interesting doctoral question too.

It's  in the Babylonian Talmud.

Torah comprises the Pentateuch in the main, but also the rest of the OT, as well as the commentaries, ie Talmud.

See also:

Who were Jannes and Jambres?


How do sola fide adherents explain The Parable of the Ten Virgins? In Matthew 25:1-12 we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom.  Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast.  The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace.  (See my analysis on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.)

A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming).  This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought".

How do sola fide adherents explain this passage?  A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

The short answer, is that works are not a requirement of salvation, but are an indication of salvation through faith, and the Holy Spirit working within the heart of the saved person.  As such, the virgins in the parable that were not prepared were not of faith, as indicated by their surprise at the arrival of the bridegroom. Keep in mind that this parable is in reference to the second coming of Christ.

This interpretation is largely supported by the idea that the virgins were "foolish", as opposed to forgetful in failing to bring enough oil to wait until night, which demonstrates a lack of faith on their part that the bridegroom would arrive at all.

Also important is verse 25:11 of Matthew (ESV):
 "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'
But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'"

Note that he does not say that they were not prepared or had not done enough to merit entry, but that he did not know them at all, a phrase used by Jesus to indicate non-believers, such as the Pharisees in John 8:19 (ESV):
"They said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also."  The Pharisees knew Jesus' identity, of course.  He was speaking to knowledge of him as the Son of God.

The comments above are my interpretations.  The following additional response is taken largely from the interpretations presented in the HCSB Study Bible, specifically Charles Quarrels of Louisiana College, who authored the commentary on Matthew.

In the HCSB commentary, the virgins represent those who fail to persevere by waiting for Jesus' return with constant vigilance. The cry of "Master, master" (Gk kurie, kurie ) is identical to that of the false disciples in Matthew 7:21 . "I do not know you" echoes Matthew 7:23 and expresses exclusion from Messiah's kingdom.

The parable does not describe a true disciple who loses his salvation, but a false one whose commitment to Jesus was deficient from the start.


Where can I find a free Russian Bible other than the Russian Synodal Translation? I am considering to translate my book into Russian.

A stopper for this is that the standard Russian Bible (Russian Synodal Translation) is out of question very poor quality. (I once compared it with the Hebrew/Greek original, and it seems that more than half verses are with errors.)

Where can I get a good free complete translation of Bible into Russian language?

I found a browsable Bible in Russian:
http://allbible.info/bible/modern/


Are the Gospels considered anonymous by historians only or by the Catholic Church also? I have read that the Gospels were anonymous, and much later they were named Mark, Mathew, Luke and John (and Luke, Mark and Mathew very similar compared with John).

Now is this more of from a historical perspective, or is this something the Catholic Church will also agree too?

Is it a heretical belief?

Is that stated in each of the Gospels themselves that the authors were inspired by God, or is this a belief that the Catholic Church has stated?

I can't speak for Catholicism in general, but I can say with confidence that they agree that the traditional titles were a later addition. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

Michael Kruger argues that "we have little reason to doubt the titles of these gospels and thus little reason to doubt the authorship of these books."

I won't duplicate his full reasoning here, but in essence, he argues that the titles for the books are very early (though not original) and that there is no extant disagreement about them. Also, if one were trying to bolster a book's credibility with a famous name, one wouldn't choose a lesser known character like Mark or Luke (a Gentile!) to do it.

Why would they have written anonymously? He suggests it parallels the OT practice in historical books, which were likewise anonymous, and places them in the tradition of OT historiographical practice. "Such a stylistic device allowed the authors of the gospels 'to disappear' and to give 'highest priority to their subject matter.'"

As for material covered, yes Matthew, Mark, and Luke have some considerable overlap, though the exact figure of how much depends on how you count. This is commonly called the synoptic problem. It has been known from ancient times and is not a heresy, though it can be taken in an unbelieving direction, as with most anything. In the second century, Tatian produced his Diatessaron, a harmony of the four gospels that cleaned it all up, but the church stuck with the "redundancy" of the four originals.

As for how the authors viewed their task, Kruger has a general answer for the NT and an answer for the book of Matthew in particular. The latter argues from the text itself (esp. the first chapter) that Matthew clearly saw himself as continuing the biblical history from the OT with the story of Jesus.

The other gospels show some additional hints of their purpose, as in John 20:30f (emphasis mine): "The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name." The author's understanding of inspiration and accuracy is touched on within the gospel itself, as when Jesus says in John 14:25f, "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, ... will remind you of everything I have said to you." Compare also Luke 1:1-5 and Acts 1:1-3 on Luke's stated purpose and method of composition.

The doctrine of inspiration starts in passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20 and proceeds from there.


Was Jesus a carpenter or a rabbi? One person told me that since disciples called Jesus rabbi and since he taught in synagogues he couldn't have been a carpenter as only rabbis were allowed to teach in synagogues.

Has this matter ever been covered in Christianity? If yes, can anyone, please, give an overview on this matter?

Could Jesus have been both carpenter and a rabbi? How did a person become  qualified rabbi in those times?

The question "Was Jesus a Rabbi" is covered here.  Short version: Yes, He was.

The question "Was Jesus a carpenter" is covered here.  Short version, "yes, but in typical fashion people dispute the exact meaning of the word, which could also be translated as craftsman."  In this case, whether carpenter could mean craftsman or stonemason or whatever other occupation doesn't matter.  You're asking how he could have been a carpenter and a Rabbi.

Not to point out the obvious, but it was a career change.  In His early days, He was a carpenter. Later, He began His true calling - His earthly ministry.

There is no discrepancy in Scripture referring to Him as a carpenter in one place, and as a Rabbi in another.  Were someone to write about my life (what a boring book that would be) they could just as easily refer to me as a Restaurant Manager and a Software Developer, a Father, Husband, Satellite dish salesman, etc.

To answer the remaining point in your question, the first link above also covers how "one became a Rabbi in those times".


How should we interpret Leviticus 18, 19? Leviticus 18 talks about sexual morality, whereas Leviticus 19 talks about food and what to eat and what not to eat. It is quite difficult to read these two passages together. Modern Christians seem to obey the sexuality commands in chapter 18, but not 19. But if we really believe in Bible is the word of God, we need to read them consistently, not intepreting one chapter according to one set of rules and another, another set of rules.

How should we interpret Leviticus 18 and 19? Should we obey both? Or should we obey none? If we obey only chapter 18, but not 19, what is the hermeneutical ground for this?

The Old Testament Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was effectively the constitution of the Israelite nation. It told their history, established them as a nation state, and gave them laws to obey individually and as a whole nation. The core of the law is the Sinai/Deuteronomy covenants. God made a contract with them that he would be their God if they would be his people, and they would show that by obeying the laws he set. Obeying the laws showed that they were God's people. But Christians are not citizens of the ancient Israelite state, and so are not bound by them. We look at the law like we look at the laws of other countries: sometimes interesting, sometimes containing laws we wish our own country had, and sometimes happy that we aren't bound by them.

All of God's laws are good, but they had purposes that do not apply to Christians. Some of them seem very strange, including the food laws which look very arbitrary, but even more some of the other ones, like not wearing clothes made to two types of fabric. God gave them these laws as lessons about how to show that they were different and separated from the nations around them.

We know that God no longer expects us to not eat any food we like because the New Testament specifically says so, such as in Matthew 15:16-20 and Acts 10. In contrast we know that God does still expect us to sexually pure, restricting sexual intercourse to heterosexual marriage, because the NT tells us that many times, such as in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6-7. We don't obey the OT Laws because we're bound by them but because God has shown us that they were not culturally and time specific.


Should a Christian wear clothing of mixed fibers? Possible Duplicate:
  To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?
  How should a christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?

I hear Leviticus 19:19 brought up from time to time, mainly because it's one in a laundry list of sins. It states:

  Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

If a sin is a sin is a sin, where does wearing mixed fibers fall in the grand scheme? Is this something that all Christians should honor?

As has been stated in answer to other such questions, God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc.  The Mosaic Law is a specific covenant between God and the Jewish people.  This covenant included many things, including the prohibition of wearing clothing with mixed fibers.  This covenant was enacted about 3500 years ago, I think.  Isaiah spoke of a new covenant that was enacted when Jesus died and rose again.  So, the Mosaic covenant was in effect between God and the Jewish nation for about 1500 years, but it is in effect no more.

Certainly, animal sacrifices are no longer required in the new covenant, because Jesus was offered once for all time.

So, for Jewish people living  between 1500 B.C. and about 30 A.D., it was applicable.  But not today.

Today, there are still sins to avoid, because all sin is to our destruction.  While momentary pleasure may be derived from sin, true fulfillment comes as we live in the presence of God.

So, wear whatever fabrics you want, but seek to know God.  That is what the Scriptures call us to today.


How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man across the chasm of hell in Jesus' story in Luke 16? How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man in hell if there is a chasm between them? And Abraham is speaking with Lazarus who is in hell?  How is this possible since we have a great chasm between us?  Does God give efficacious grace for us to speak to people in hell?  I don't think so because than we'd be sad?  So why does Abraham speak to someone in hell?

  So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  Then he cried and said,'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
  But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'
  Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'
  Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
  And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
  But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' (Luke 16:22-31, NKJV)

I am not claiming that this is orthodox, but it is the explanation I heard in a Baptist church. It was the pastor's explanation.

First, according to the pastor, this story is not a parable. Jesus never gives names in His parables (instead He uses descriptions such as a certain rich man).

Second, at the time the parable was told, Jesus had yet to be crucified, resurrected and ascended to the Father. So the sacrifice for sins had yet to be paid. Thus, the righteous souls from the old testament (those who looked forward to the sacrifice Christ would one day make) were also not yet ascended to the Father. Instead, they waited in Paradise, which was separated from the place of punishment, but in the same proximity (center of the earth?).

After Jesus was resurrected, the graves were opened and many dead also arose. These were the souls from Paradise ascending to Heaven.

It is late and I don't have time to look up the scripture references that he used, but I will try to add them tomorrow. As I said at the beginning, I don't claim this to be orthodox, but it was the explanation given by a Baptist pastor.


Using context in interpreting Scripture When I am discussing the Bible and I use the Old Testament, often I am told that that portion does not apply to us because it is addressed to the Jews.  By the time I am finished with my discussion I may as well go through the Bible and cut out all the scriptures that are to the Jews.  I am told that I must read the context.  If this is true then it seems that I have very little to support many of my understandings of Scripture. I cannot even use the words of Jesus because he lived and spoke during the time of the law and not grace.   Can you help me with this.  Thanks!

The context of the New Testament is the primarily the Old Testament.
Everything else is secondary.
Jesus Christ studied and lived according to the Old Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 4: 19, 'Follow me . . .'
No Christian can get away from those words.
What Jesus attacked was not the Old Testament but interpretation of the law especially by the Pharisees.
There are modern 'Pharisees' as well.
(It sounds as if you are being bullied. Don't stand for it. Study, think, and judge for yourself. It is your soul.)