Were the Jews right in accusing Jesus of claiming to be God? I was once asked this question by a Jehovah Witness to prove if the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. I affirm that they did while the Jehovah Witnesses deny it.

Related question here

I'm going to approach this by saying the following. Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus "SAID" that caused the Jews to say He was claiming to be God?

John 5:16, "And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing thins on the Sabbath." What Jesus did was heal on man on the Sabbath. Jesus says at John 5:17, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to KILL Him, because (or why?) He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the sense that no other believer is of God's essence. Look what Jesus says at Luke 2:49 when He was a boy. "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

What did Jesus say at John 8:58 that upset the Jews? "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus was saying to the Jews that before Abraham's existence He himself was existing. This is also confirmed at John 1:15 by John the Baptist. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, FOR HE EXISTED BEFORE ME."

So how did the Jews reply to what Jesus stated, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus his Himself, and went out of the temple." Did you notice Jesus made His statement right there in the Temple.

How about what Jesus says at John 10:30, He literally says in the Greek, "I and the Father WE are one." Jesus distinguishes the "I" from the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Asserting their unity of essence or nature as identical. Hence John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone AGAIN to stone Him."

The Jews understood Jesus correctly. There could be no mistake about His meaning. "Again" refers to John 8:59 at which time the Jews also attempted to stone Him for blasphemy.

At John 19::7, "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out the Son of God." Matthew's trial record gets into more detail than the trial record here at John 19.

The high priest Caiaphas at Matthew 26:63 ask Jesus a question? "I adjure You (swear to us) by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God?" Caiaphas was clearly asking if Jesus was ONE person; "The Christ, the Son of (God)." Obviously Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus was "The Christ the Son of (God)"; it was a rhetorical question intended to trap Jesus into committing blasphemy.

Jesus, calling Himself the Son of God is not blasphemy because He really WAS the Son of God. This is confirmed or proved by multiple Scriptures. Notice also how the the claim "Son of God," "equal to God," "making Yourself out God" are used interchangeably by the Jews. The high priest Caiaphas finally says at Matthew 26:65, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy."

In conclusion, I find that there is an abundance of evidence that the Jews knew exactly that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. Moreover, there is clear evidence throughout the New Testament that others stated He was God who were Jews as well.

As a side note! I could have proved the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God by writing the following 16 words or so and calling it a day. "If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, why did they bring up the Law at John 19:7?" The law that Jesus "supposedly" broke can be found at Leviticus 24:16. Bottom line, the Jews did not believe Jesus Christ.

The following is from "Jews For Jesus." https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v14-n02/the-claims-of-jesus/

This is another site that backs up what Jesus was claiming. https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/bible-answer-man/read/articles/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god-by-hank-hanegraaff-8825.html


Did some Christian sects ever hold the opinion that ritual slaughter was obligatory, before the 10th century? Like this question, I am curious about whether Christian doctrines used to hold the opinion that a ritual slaughter (with it rules and conditions) had to be done when slaughtering animals, historically speaking.

In Islam (and Judaism) there are prohibitions about eating dead animals, which haven't been slaughtered in a certain way. Muslims may for instance eat meat if the animal was slaughtered by a Christian if it was slaughtered in accordance with those rules.

If Muslims were allowed to eat meat slaughtered by Christians, that should imply that the Christians did have a method of ritual slaughtering. (Because according to the Islamic principles, a Muslim may only eat meat which has been slaughtered right according to some special conditions or rules, therefore if a Muslim may eat meat slaughtered by Christians it should imply that the Christians did ritual slaughtering, if not their meat wouldn't be allowed for Muslims. But it is.)

Are there any known Christian school of thoughts or historical evidences that Christians used to slaughter in a specific way, and that they prohibited certain meat (not slaughtered right or for instance swine)?

In order to make the question less broad, I am looking for the early period of Christianity, up to the 10th century (but around the 6th century is preferable). The place could of course also be factor so I am adding these into the equation: Arabia, Egypt, Jerusalem, Iraq.

I do not know if this response will actually answer your question, but I will give it a possible conclusion to it.

In a sense animal sacrifice and ritual slaughter are not always clearly seen or defined, yet it would seem inappropriate to have a animal sacrifice without a set ritual for slaughtering such animals.

  Rituals of animal sacrifice have been far more common in Christianity than is generally recognized. When missionaries arrived in Britain around the year 600, sacrifice was so deeply engrained in culture that the Pope allowed it to continue provided that the animals were offered to the Christian God and no other. In more recent centuries, these rituals have been mainly confined to Eastern Orthodox Churches. An ancient sacrificial liturgy known as the matal, meaning ‘something tender’, has persisted In the Armenian Church to the present day.

  A key requirement of animals offered for sacrifice is that they must be unblemished, ensuring that they have been well-fed, comfortably accommodated and free from disease. In the Armenian matal, at least three factors minimize the suffering caused to the animal during slaughter: rules must be observed, attentiveness shown by the slaughterer, and reverence displayed at all times. In some accounts of sacrifice, the animal is presented as so contented that it co-operates in its own sacrifice. Paulinus (354-431) describes such an instance at the shrine of Felix of Nola in southern Italy, in which a heifer designated for sacrifice guided her owners to the shrine to present herself with them. - Christian Attitudes to Animals

There is the Armenian Matagh tradition that persists to this day. It should be noted that according to tradition, Armenia became a Christian nation in the Year of Our Lord 301.

  In Armenian Christian tradition, matagh (Armenian: մատաղ mataġ) is a lamb or a rooster slated for sacrifice to God, a ritual which has continued from the pagan past. In many regions of Armenia today, this pagan-Christian synthesis is very much alive in the regular slaughter of chosen animals in front of churches. Matagh is done often to ask God for either forgiveness, health, or to give them something in return. People generally gather at the house where the Matagh was done, where they pray and eat the meat. Tradition holds that the meat must be eaten before sundown.

It is not impossible that the Ethiopian tradition of slaughtering animals while saying the trinitarian formula predates the 10th century.

  In the 7th century the conquests of the Muslim Arabs cut off the Ethiopian church from contact with most of its Christian neighbours. The church absorbed various syncretic beliefs in the following centuries, but contact with the outside Christian world was maintained through the Ethiopian monastery in Jerusalem. - Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Wikipedia has this to say about Christian dietary laws:

  Slaughtering animals for food is often done with the trinitarian formula. Although the Armenian Apostolic Church, among other Orthodox Christians, have rituals that "display obvious links with shechitah, Jewish kosher slaughter." In addition, meat consumed by Christians should not retain any blood, a practice that both Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter also prescribe, and one that is done by most slaughterhouses throughout Christendom. - Christian dietary laws

Today this tradition can still be seen in Ethiopia, the only question is as to when this tradition was first implicated.

  In Addis Ababa, there is one Christian slaughterhouse and one Muslim one, each of which supplies all respective butchers and restaurants. At the Christian slaughterhouse, an Orthodox priest will bless all the animals with a Trinitarian blessing, a pattern that is repeated in other large towns and cities. In the countryside, this may be left to the senior male householders who pray a Trinitarian blessing over the bull, goat, lamb or chicken before its throat is cut. - Food & Fasting


When did the insertion of title-page for Old Testament and New Testament started? All the Bible I have seen have title-pages for both New Testament and Old Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title "The Old Testament" which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title "The New Testament" indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament.

I wanted to know how it was in the antique Greek Bibles and I checked the Codex Sinaiticus online. Have a look at this particular page, which is the last page of the Book of Job and the last page for the Old Testament in Codex Sinaiticus. The next page is Gospel of Matthew. I did not find any extra page dedicated for the title "The Old Testament". (I can't read Greek, so please someone read for me what is written at the bottom right corner of the page as I believe it marks the end of Old Testament or something like that)  :P

When did the division of the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament started?

When was it decided that it should be divided?

(Thanks in advance to whoever read those Greek words for me)

The Old Testament and the New Testament are different sections of the library.  To think of this division as "insert a title page" is too far off the mark.

Imagine, if you will, a library of 66 books, written over the course of 1500 years, by 40 different men (possibly one woman).  As each of these works was created, it doesn't make sense to ask "When did someone insert a title page?" Rather, each work was created individually, and had its own distinction.

Eventually, these 66 (or 73 if you are Catholic) were recognized as the "best of the best."  And, as such, these became the manuscripts to have in your collection.  Over time, the Jews assembled the 39 manuscripts known as the "Old Testament" and even dictated the order in which they should be shelved on the library.  (The 12 minor prophets, for example, have a keyword at the end of each book that corresponds to the keyword at the beginning of the next.) An additional 7 books were considered the best runners up, and shelved accordingly.

By around 400 BC or 200 BC, the "Old Testament" was pretty well decided, and fixed.

In the First century after Christ, however, his work was so important to Christians that the apostolic writers' works were seen as being as important, if not moreso, to Christians then the original Jewish Scriptures.  While each of the works in question (Gospels, histories, letters from Paul, Peter, and James) was written between about 50 AD and 100 AD, they were, over time, also selected as the best of the best.

In order to distinguish the two origins - one distinctly Jewish, one Christian - they were shelved in different places - Old Testament and New.

With the invention of the printing press in 1453, it became affordable for people to have all of these manuscripts.  In order to save on printing costs, all 66 - 73 books were eventually printed under one binding.  The canonical order of the books was set by tradition, and the contents were already in agreement.  In order to help people locate the books, they were separated into the two categories.

As such, the technical answer to your question is - Gutenberg is responsible for the "Title Page," but all he was doing was following history and convention. These separate books had been separate all along.

Note: The 'title page' you show is just a restatement of a creed:

  ϊωβ
  Job

  ὁ παλαιᾶϲ καὶ καινῆϲ διαθήκηϲ θϲ
  Oh God of the old and new covenant

  ὁ ἐν τριάδι ὑμνούμενοϲ
  who in trinity is praised

  καὶ ἐν μονάδι δοξολογούμενοϲ αὐτὸϲ
  and in unity is glorified:

  δέξαι τὴν μετάνοιαν τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ θεοφυλάκτου
  receive the repentance of a God-guarded* sinner

  καὶ ἀξίωϲον αὐτὸν τυχεῖν τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ ϲου
  and count him worthy to attain your kingdom

  διὰ ϲπλάχνα ἐλέουϲ ϲου
  by the bowels of your mercy

  καὶ ἐλέοϲ ἀμέτρητον
  yea mercy immeasurable.

It should be noted that Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest Greek Manuscript we have - but it is just that - a codex.  (Tischendorf found these manuscripts in a trash can in the monastery at Sinai and stole brought them back to England. It's the oldest manuscript we have.  What you are linking to are copies of each of the bound manuscripts.)

*Possibly the scribe's name: "this sinner, Theophylact".


Does the Bible give any reason as to why its content is sometimes difficult to interpret? As evidenced by this site, and the divisions between various Christian denominations, there seems to be a lot of different ways some passages in the bible can be interpreted.

One example is Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth!  The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." For hundreds of years (and still some today) some Christians interpreted this to mean the earth is the center universe and does not move.

So is there anything in the Bible that clearly states why some passages are written in such a way as to potentiate interpretation?

If not, is there anything in the Bible that may even suggest or hint at why this is, or perhaps a story alluding to this like someone navigating a task though directed by unclear instructions?

Yes, absolutely
First understand these premises, earthly wisdom and Godly wisdom.

James 3:14-15  (NIV)
14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts,
do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not
come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
James 3:17 (NIV)
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then
peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere.

This is the answer to your question
Isaiah was commissioned by God to go and rebuke a wicked people and deliver this curse to them.

Isaiah 6:9-10 NIV
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but
never perceiving.’  10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they
might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand
with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Wicked people and the wisdom of this world
God has purposely shut off the understanding of His word to the common man. Because of that mans wickedness he will never know the truth about God. But if that man turns from his wickedness, repents, and has faith in Jesus Christ, then God will open the flood gates of wisdom so that you may understand His word.

Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life
of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening
of their hearts.

Children of God
God promises a wealth of understanding when He gives you the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:8
that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,
Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the
knowledge and fear of the LORD—
Colossians 1:9
... We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge
of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit
gives,


Does Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" state a position on predestination? This question is NOT:

what does John Bunyan believe about predestination
is predestination biblically accurate?

This question is:

Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination?
And if so, which chapter / section?

Thanks!

Here is an argument in favor of Pilgrim's Progress supporting predestination.

The names of the characters defines their behavior.

Faith, Christian, and Hopeful made it to the heavenly kingdom.

Timid, Athiest, Ignorance: not so much.

Furthermore, characters do not change their name. [For example, there is, afaik, not a section which details how "Christian" used to be named "Unbeliever" and then later changes his name.]


How did the tradition of Mothering Sunday arise? Mothering Sunday is a tradition that dates back to at least the 16th century. People would visit their "mother church" either a cathedral or large local church and people were often permitted to travel to the mother church of the place where they were baptised.

However, my question is how did this tradition arise? Is there a basis for it in church doctrine? Did it start as a folk-movement or was it introduced into the church calendar? What are the origins of this Christian festival?

The Free Online Encyclopedia has the following, quoted without the references:

  Mothering Sunday
  March-April; fourth Sunday in Lent
  It was the custom in 17th-century England for Christians to pay their respects on the
  fourth Sunday in Lent to the "Mother Church" where they had been
  baptized. Also known as Misers, or Mid-Lent, Sunday, this
  day usually included a visit to one's parents—to "go a-mothering," as
  it was called back then. It was common practice to bring a cake or
  trinket for the mother of the family. In England the favorite gift was
  the simnel cake, a saffron-flavored fruitcake topped with almond
  paste. In the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, the
  fourth Sunday in Lent is known as Laetare Sunday . The Introit of
  the Mass begins with the word "Rejoice" (laetare in Latin), marking a
  slight respite in the solemn Lenten season, hence the terms Mid-Lent
  Sunday and Refreshment Sunday . Priests may wear rose-colored
  vestments to mass, instead of the usual purple for Lent, so the day is
  also called Rose Sunday. Also on this day the pope blesses the
  Golden Rose, an ornament resembling a spray of roses, symbolizing
  spiritual joy.

Please see also:

Laetare Sunday | New Advent.


Moral implications of heaven and hell doctrine Many Christians believe that when a person dies, they go to either heaven or hell. Catholics believe in purgatory, but most Protestants seem to not believe in this doctrine. Furthermore, the vast majority of Protestant Christians claim that salvation comes about through having the right belief in Jesus - who he was and a theological understanding of what he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Christianity

This doctrine of eternal consequences without the ability to get purified in purgatory never really made logical sense to me for a number of reasons, including the contradiction between Old Testament righteous people seeming to have a good afterlife without knowing about Jesus, and slippery-slope questions about children, mentally handicapped and others who simply never heard the gospel but were more or less good people. I have encountered at least some answers to these objections, although they seemed logically incoherent to me. However, I have not heard any answers at all to the following:

Let's suppose that the Christian dogma of heaven and hell is correct. That would mean that the ultimate moral consequences are determined by God. If a person cannot bring themselves to believe in "Mere Christianity" -- because, for example, every time they try to examine the evidence for/against Christianity it leads them to the conclusion that this is a man made legend and nothing really supernatural occurred -- what incentive or reason does this person have to behave morally at all? According to Protestant Christianity, no matter how good an unbeliever behaves, even the kindest old lady gets the same exact fate as Hitler and Pol Pot. Isn't this a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the heaven/hell doctrine provides for no moral incentives for unbelievers to act good without Christian belief?

The answer to your question "Isn't this a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the heaven/hell doctrine provides for no moral incentives for unbelievers to act good without Christian belief?" is (essentially) yes.

Christianity is more than doing good to others. That is the second commandment of the law. The first and greatest is to love God. (Matthew 22:36-40).

Hosea 6:6

  For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

This may run contrary to your notion of "good", but be that as it may, Christianity holds faith in God as necessary to true goodness, or righteousness.

Hebrews 11:4

  By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...

It wasn't because of his wisdom, charity, wit, etc. that Abel's offering was more excellent; it was because of his faith (in God).

That said, this statement is a bit leading to a Christian: "No matter how good an unbeliever behaves [he gets] the same exact fate."

The fallacy here, is the possibility people can be very "good" but choose to reject Jesus (and by extension, God himself).

All good comes from God. And therefore, good things acknowledge and worship God.

James 1:17

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Likewise, those who truly love and worship God are good.

John 4:19

  If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Now, it is important to remember than spoken belief (e.g. "I murder and have no remose, yet I believe in God") is not equivalent to true faith.

Matthew 7:22-23

  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Thus, true faith in God and true goodness, according to Christian belief are not separable. Of course, not all are taught Jesus, or at least not fully. There are several questions about the fate of the ignorant. (1) (2)


Are the contents of the Jehovah Witness website dogmatic? Is the content of the Jehovah Witness website final and binding?

For example, is the Bible Study guide definite and binding to all the Faithful? Or is it a usefull study guide that is open for the Faithful to critique.

The main site of jw.org contains the most up-to-date information on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so it's authoritative in that sense, but it isn't as authoritative as the Bible. The website is updated over time, and new clarifications are published yearly.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 (NWT)
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

There's a concept Jehovah's Witnesses have called "making the truth your own." Nobody is expected to blindly believe in something just because the website or one of the publications says it. If someone finds something they don't understand or agree with, that's a great opportunity to do more research on the subject.

Matthew 15:7-9 (NWT)
7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

Acts 17:11 (NWT)
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.


Does the Seal of Confession include saying whether or not a person confessed to them? The Seal of Confession is the duty of Catholic priests to not disclose anything they hear from someone who comes to them for confession. Does this include disclosing whether or not someone has seen them for confession? For instance, could they say:

  Yes, I have seen Joe Schmoe in confession yesterday afternoon, but I cannot reveal anything that was discussed.

Or would that be something that they wouldn't be allowed to say?

Another way of putting this is: at what point does the Seal of Confession start? When they walk in the door or when they say something?

No, a priest cannot even reveal that because it would betray the penitent.

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner [e.g., by signs] and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Technically, a priest can reveal good things about a penitent he has heard in confession. This is what St. Catherine of Siena's confessor Bl. Raymond of Capua was able to do in his biography of St. Catherine; ibid. pt. 1, ch. 2 fn 1:

“The virtues and graces of the penitent are not matters for the seal [of Confession], provided they are not manifested in order more clearly to declare the sins themselves, e.g., the gravity of ingratitude towards God*.” (Emphasis in original). (Jone, Moral Theology, no. 618, Imprimatur 1961; TAN reprint 1993).—Publisher, 2003.

* ∵ the more graces one has, the greater his ingratitude could be


What does "proceeds" mean to Eastern Orthodox? The Eastern Orthodox Nicene Creed says:

  I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
  heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
  God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
  Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
  not created, of one essence with the Father
  through Whom all things were made.
  Who for us men and for our salvation
  came down from heaven and was incarnate
  of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
  He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
  and suffered and was buried;
  And He rose on the third day,
  according to the Scriptures.
  He ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
  And He will come again with glory to judge the living
  and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

  And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
  Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
  Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
  spoke through the prophets.
  In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
  I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
  I look for the resurrection of the dead,
  and the life of the age to come.
  Amen.

But what about God? It says God "proceeds" from God. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, proceed means:

  Full Definition of proceed
  intransitive verb

  1:  to come forth from a source :  issue

  2 a:  to continue after a pause or interruption
  b:  to go on in an orderly regulated way

  3 a:  to begin and carry on an action, process, or movement
  b:  to be in the process of being accomplished

  4:  to move along a course :  advance

According to Eastern Orthodox, what does "proceeds" mean?

Our Church teaches that these are the attributes of the persons of the Holy Trinity (fatherhood, begotten, procession),  and that we should not try to associate human concepts to them.
After all, what does "begotten" mean? Can it be humanly explained?
From my point of view, one can understand these just through revelation and not through ration.

[editing to reply to the first comment]
According to the dictionary, "born" means to "start to exist". But the Word has not start, there is no time notion within the Holy Trinity. According to the teaching of the Church, we cannot say that the Father was before the Son or the Spirit. There is no "before". This is what I mean that "born" should not be interpreted in human terms.
You can use "proceeds" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit and the fact that, somehow, there is a sort of movement (Gen 1,2 "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.") but we should not try to attach the human understanding in order to describe God. The Holy Trinity cannot be truly described in human terms. One can understand God inasmuch as one is in communion with God.


Prominent Theologians' answer to: What is "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager" about? The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (full text below) is perhaps one of the hardest parables to interpret. At first glance it seems to be about rewarding dishonesty!
What lesson is Jesus teaching His followers with this parable? Has any prominent theologian (eg Matthew Henry, NT Wright) explained this parable?

Luke 16:1-14
Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

From Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary:

Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. This steward wasted his lord's goods. And we are all liable to the same charge; we have not made due improvement of what God has trusted us with. The steward cannot deny it; he must make up his accounts, and be gone.
This may teach us that death will come, and deprive us of the opportunities we now have. The steward will make friends of his lord's debtors or tenants, by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord. The lord referred to in this parable commended not the fraud, but the policy of the steward. In that respect alone is it so noticed. Worldly men, in the choice of their object, are foolish; but in their activity, and perseverance, they are often wiser than believers.
The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object.
The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.

My understanding from this commentary is that the manager's goal didn't change - he wanted a comfortable lifestyle without working too hard - and used his Master's resources for his own purposes. Even when he was caught - and was about to lose the position that enabled him to achieve his nefarious goal easily, he made another plan, a very clever plan, and tried to win the affections of his master's debtors by slashing their debts - probably guaranteeing that someone would give him free board and lodging for a while.
Jesus is certainly not holding this man up as a shining example of morality, but of using his brains to try every possible method of achieving his aim. The aim was not noble, but his persistence and shrewdness in pursuing the aim was. What should we take from this then? We should learn from anyone - even those we want to label as "worldly" or "sinful" - to work hard and be shrewd in how we pursue God's aims.
The other aspect of this parable is using the stuff of this world for eternal purposes - In the first fraudulent scheme the manager was simply skimming the master's funds and putting them in his own pocket. His thinking was entirely in the pleasures of the here and now. Once he saw his cushy position coming to an end he started using the money to make friends to provide for him at the end of his present "life" when he no longer had any control.


How do the Catholic and Orthodox views of original sin differ? While reading about original sin, I often read that the Catholic and Orthodox churches disagree on the doctrine of original sin. But as far as I can tell, they both reject the idea that mankind inherited sin from Adam and believe that mankind only inherited the fallen nature. The only differences I see are in terminology. What am I missing? How are their views on original sin different?

Catholics (i.e., Western or Latin -- I belong to this group) believe that original sin entails actually inheriting the burden of Adam's Sin, which is mortal sin keeping us from entering heaven without a method of acquiring sanctifying grace, such as baptism. Original sin also threw all of nature into discord, and is the source of man's concupiscence. The Easter Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox, by contrast, do not believe that man inherits the burden of Adam's sin, but they believe that it is the source of the fallen nature of man, and concupiscence.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin


What was St. Robert Bellarmine teaching on human cooperation with grace? What did St. Robert teach on grace and cooperation with it? Did he accept the Thomistic doctrine of grace? Did he agree with Báñez or did he side with Molina?

St. Robert's opinion
St. Robert's views are found in his De gratia et libero arbitrio libri sex.
According to Pohle-Preuss's Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise (Chapter III. Grace In Its Relation To Free-Will, Section 2. Theological Systems Devised To Harmonize The Dogmas Of Grace And Free-Will, Article 2. Molinism And Congruism),

Cardinal Bellarmine, who was a champion and protector of P. Molina, seems to have rejected Molinism765 in favor of Congruism.766

Cfr. his treatise De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, I, 12 […]: “Prima opinio eorum est, qui gratiam efficacem constituunt in assensu et cooperatione humana, ita ut ab eventu dicatur gratia efficax, quia videlicet sortitur effectum et ideo sortitur effectum, quia voluntas humana cooperatur. Itaque existimant hi autores, in potestate hominis esse ut gratiam faciat esse efficacem, quae alioquin ex se non esset nisi sufficiens.”Their first opinion is that efficacious grace consists in human assent and cooperation, so that from its occurence it is called efficacious grace, because it works its effect and thus achieves the effect, because the human will cooperates. So these authors think that it is within human power that grace is made efficacious, which otherwise of itself is only sufficient.Bellarmine treats this opinion as the extreme counterpart of Thomism (which he also combats) and disposes of it thus: “Haec opinio aliena est omnino a sententia b. Augustini et, quantum ego existimo, a sententia etiam Scripturarum divinarum.” (l.c.)This opinion is entirely foreign to the thought of St. Augustine and, as far as I think, even to the thought of Holy Scriptures. Among the Scriptural texts which he quotes in support of this view are John VI, 45, 1 Cor. IV, 7, Rom. IX, 11.

The learned Cardinal describes the difference between Congruism and extreme Molinism (which latter, it may be remarked, was not defended by Molina himself) as follows: “Neque enim intelligi potest, quo pacto gratia efficax consistat in illa interna suasione, quae per liberum arbitrium respui potest, et tamen infallibilem effectum habeat, nisi addamus, Deum iis quos efficaciter et infallibiliter trahere decrevit, eam suasionem adhibere quam videt congruere ingenio eorum et quam certo novit ab eis non contemnendam.” (Op. cit., […])Nor can it be understood that efficacious grace consists in that internal persuasion which by freewill can be rejected and yet have an infallible effect, unless we add that God efficaciously and infallibly decreed they draw it, which persuasion He sees congruent with their innate nature and which He certainly knows they will not despise.The objection that this explanation eventually resolves itself into the Molinistic theory which he had censured, Bellarmine meets as follows: “Respondeo sententiam nostram, quam S. Augustini esse demonstravimus, aliqua in re cum prima illa opinione convenire, sed in multis ab illa discrepare. Convenit enim in eo quod utraque sententia gratiam sufficentem et efficacem ponit in auxilio excitante potissimum, non in adiuvante. Sed discrepant inter se, quod prima opinio vult efficaciam gratiae pendere a voluntate humana, nostra vero pendere vult a voluntate Dei.” (l.c., cap. 13 [p. 294].)I answer that our opinion, which we have demonstrated is St. Augustine's, really agrees with that first opinion, but in many ways disagrees with it. It agrees with both opinions by putting sufficient and efficacious grace in the most powerful eliciting divine help, not in the one helped. But they disagree with each other, the first opinion wanting efficacious grace to depend on the human will, but ours wanting it to depend on the will of God.

(Improvements of the English translations, which are not in Pohle-Preuss, are welcome. ☺)
From this answer: St. Augustine's view on efficacious grace, from his De praedestinatione sanctorum, chap. 8:

Grace which is not rejected by any hard-heartedness, since it is bestowed, in the first place, to remove hardness of heart.

and his De gratia Christi, chap. 24:

[Efficacious grace is the] internal, hidden, wonderful, and ineffable power by which God effects in the hearts of men not only true revelations but even upright wills.

Congruism
Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "congruism" as:

The theory of man's co-operation with grace, first developed by Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) and St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and later adopted by the Jesuit order. According to congruism, the difference between efficacious and sufficient grace lies not only in the consent of the free will (Molinism), but also in the congruity or suitableness of a particular grace to the peculiar conditions of the one who receives the grace. When the grace suits the interior dispositions and external circumstances of a person, it becomes effective by the free consent of the will; otherwise it remains ineffective because it lacks free acceptance. As in Molinism, God foresees the congruity of the grace and its infallible success. Unlike Molinism, congruism places the emphasis not on man's freedom but on the supremacy of the divine will in determining salvation. (Etym. Latin congruitas, congruity, fitness, suitability, becomingness.)


Is asceticism defendable under a Christian world view? This question is somewhat related to this one. What are the Protestant churches views on asceticism, what does the canon say about the tenants and is it Biblical?

Jesus says in Luke 9:23,

  If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

This is likely where asceticism originates from. However, verses such as 1 Timothy 6:17 say that "[God] richly provides us with everything to enjoy." Asceticism tends to forego enjoyment for self-inflicted suffering.

Perhaps one of the strongest Biblical passages against asceticism would be 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Since your question focuses on the demoninational views and not my own, I've compiled a list of denominational opinions for you.

GotQuestions (non-denominational) suggests that self-denial to a degree is an extreme response to an otherwise accurate interpretation of the command, citing the above verses that reflect that God wants us to be blessed and enjoy our lives.

The people of the United Methodist Church seem to encourage frequent fasting, but nowhere near the degree of self-mutilation of sleeping in freezing temperatures.

The Lutheran Church seems to take a similar view according to The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. The article cites how Luther "opposed artificial asceticism by showing that works cannot justify." Judging by Luther's early life and how he lived in extreme asceticism before rejecting such works and kickstarting the Protestant Reformation, it is reasonable to assume that "artificial asceticism" extends to doing things like sleeping outside during a blizzard (which Luther himself did multiple times almost to the point of death).

Pentecostals originally were heavily ascetic, but it seems that somewhat of a shift is being made away from such doctrine as a result of the Full Gospel Movement (specifically Prosperity Gospel, which holds that all financial and material gain is in accordance with God's will).

All in all, it seems that the proper way of life according to the Protestant interpretation of the Bible is to fast and abstain as necessary to grow closer to God, but don't hurt yourself.

God bless. :)

Sources (I can only post one link because StackExchange doesn't trust me yet.):

Luke 9:23 ESV

1 Timothy 6:17 ESV

1 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV

Got Questions on Asceticism

United Methodist Church
(Pastors debate value of Lenten sacrifices)

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Pentecostal Asceticism and Prosperity Gospel: Civil Society and the Search for Development Alternatives in Cameroon (Page 80, found on Google Books), and ‘Winning Ways’: Globalisation and the Impact of the Health and Wealth Gospel by Stephen Hunt

I am Protestant.


What is meant by the "fullness of the Gentiles" or the "times of the Gentiles"? In Luke 21:24, Jesus speaks of future events, including the destruction of Jerusalem and His return, saying:

  “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (ESV).

A similar phrase is found in Romans 11:25, which says,

  A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (ESV).

What did Jesus and Paul mean by the “times of the Gentiles” or the "fullness of Gentiles"?

Does the Bible tell us what the phrase “times of the Gentiles” or "fullness of Gentiles" means?

Often the Bible says something that offers a glimpse of something that raises many more questions than it answers.

  Luke 21:20-24  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,
  then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.   Then let them which
  are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the
  midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries
  enter thereinto.   For these be the days of vengeance, that all things
  which are written may be fulfilled.   But woe unto them that are with
  child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be
  great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.   And they
  shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive
  into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
  until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The context of Luke 21:24 is a description Jesus is giving about the "days of vengence". There are some other verses that bear upon this time.

  Daniel 9:26-27  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be
  cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall
  come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof
  shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
  determined.   And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one
  week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and
  the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he
  shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that
  determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That this can be taken to describe what Jesus is talking about can be seen from the parallel verses in Matthew;

  Matthew 24:14-16  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
  all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end
  come.   When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
  spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
  readeth, let him understand:)   Then let them which be in Judaea flee
  into the mountains:

From Daniel we get an understanding that after the arrival of Jesus there will be a seven year (a "week" being shâbûa "sevened" in Hebrew) interruption by the "prince" that shall come.

Some feel that everything described in Daniel, Matthew, Luke , and Revelation all happened at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. I think you have to reach too far to advance that theory.

I think an allowance has to be made for the offer of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel. If Israel had accepted the offer of the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, I think the destruction and seven year interval written in Daniel would have happened right away.

I think we see an allowance for the possibility the Israel would not accept the kingdom at that time when Jesus makes the announcement of his ministry.

  Luke 4:17-20  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet
  Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it
  was written,   The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
  anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal
  the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
  recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
  bruised,  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.   And he closed
  the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the
  eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

  Isaiah 61:1-6  The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD
  hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me
  to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
  the opening of the prison to them that are bound;   To proclaim the
  acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to
  comfort all that mourn;   To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to
  give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the
  garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be
  called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might
  be glorified.   And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise
  up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the
  desolations of many generations.  And strangers shall stand and feed
  your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your
  vinedressers.   But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men
  shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of
  the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

The portion of Isaiah that Jesus read did not include the full text. He stopped before the proclamation of the "day of vengeance".

It is at this point where allowance is made for the nation of Israel to accept the Kingdom or not. When Paul wrote Romans, I see this offer to Israel still open.

  Romans 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
  God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
  Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

I see a future time when a faithful remnant of Israel will receive the kingdom.

  Revelation 1:7  Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see
  him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth
  shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

  Isaiah 66:8  Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things?
  Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation
  be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her
  children.

The variability of when Israel would receive the kingdom bears directly on what might be called the time of the gentiles. I see potentially it might have been as short as seven years.

Paul had hoped that seeing gentiles come to salvation and manifest the works of the Holy Spirit would be sufficient to provoke Israel to jealousy and become motivated to, as a nation, receive the offered kingdom.

The last thing the disciples asked Jesus was when the kingdom would be established.

  Acts 1:6-7  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him,
  saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
  Israel?   And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times
  or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus was describing how Jerusalem would be under the control of gentiles for a period of time. Paul was describing a period of time in which gentiles were brought ("come in") to salvation without the aid of a faithful Israel.

In dispensational doctrine, when Christians are taken out of the world at the rapture, the world reverts to an Israel centered perspective and the seven year period Daniel wrote about starts. This period of time could have been as short as seven years. The future 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth from Jerusalem could have been already established for two thousand years.

  Romans 11:12  Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and
  the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
  their fulness?

From various verses in the Old Testament we can get a picture of what things will be like and could have been like with the "fulness" of Israel.

No war;

  Isaiah 2:4  And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke
  many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and
  their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
  nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Long life;

  Isaiah 65:20  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an
  old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an
  hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be
  accursed.

Nature less hostile;

  Isaiah 11:6  The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
  shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
  fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

While we are waiting for the time of the gentiles to end and the arrival of the kingdom, we can take comfort that our King is faithful and will accomplish all he has promised.


Difference between Eutychianism and Monophysitism I was reading about some Catholic Christological heresies. Then I came across Monophysitisism and Eutychianism. Both discuss the divine and human nature of Christ. They both theorize that Christ had only one nature. As opposed to adoptionism the single nature of Christ according to these doctrines is divine. Now I am a bit confused. Are these two doctrines one and the same? Or are there some subtle differences between these two doctrines?

The Wikipedia article on Monophysitisism answers your question when it says:

  There are two major doctrines that can indisputably be called "monophysite":

  Eutychianism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
  Apollinarism or Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day.

In other words, Eutychianism is a subset of Monophysitisism.


Christian view of why there are so many similarities between Quran and Bible? Quran has a huge number of stories that originally came in Bible. To Muslims, this is almost a miracle that God revealed the same stories to prophet without the prophet knowing about it because he was illiterate (he could not read nor write). What is Christian view of where these stories come from?

Some of the stories the Quran taken from the Bible are:

Creation of Earth in Seven days (Bible). God created Earth in 7 days (Quran)
We are children of Adam and Eve (Bible). We are children of Adam and Eve (Quran)
Noah flood happened (Bible). Yes Noah flood happened (Bible)
Flood was global (Bible). Indeed it was global (Quran)
Noah ark set on a mountain (Bible). Noah ark set on a moutain (Quran)

There are many, many other stories some of which many are alteration from the Bible version like crucifixion of the Christ. Quran says Jesus Christ was raised up to heaven before his crucifixion.

What is the Christian view on all this? How did the prophet, Muhammad, know about this if it was not revealed by God.

It's not even a Christian perspective that's needed. It's a historical one.

Christianity sprang from Judaism, and Judaism and Islam share common roots.  All three are known as "Abrahamic religions" because they trace their history to the covenant God made with Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. All of the events you listed were from before Abraham.

Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham’s son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael.

The origin of Islam, and the relationship between it and Judaism is easily researchable. Here's a good place to start: http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm


What exactly was the earliest start time of a Catholic mass before 1957? - What means aurora? Before the Motu Propio "Sacram Communionem. On Laws of Fasting and the Evening Mass" of Pope Pius XII in 1957, the rule of c. 821 § 1 CIC/1917 applied in the Catholic Church as a ruling on the times for celebrating mass. The codex is from 1917, but I suspect the rule is older (maybe Council of Trent?).

  c. 821 § 1 CIC/1917: Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram vel serius quam una hora post meridiem.

  The beginning of the celebrated mass shall not be before one hour before aurora and later than one hour after midday. [my translation]

What does aurora means in this context? Is it sunrise, the beginning of the red sky at morning or something else? Was there a definition or practical formula in the canonical literature? As this question was practically relevant for every priest there should be at least some rule of thumb.

This question is different from Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day?. The scope of that question is broader and in Geremia's Answer the word aurora is just translated with sunrise without explanation. I want the details here.

"Aurora" in Latin means "dawn", as opposed to "sunrise" (which is "ortus solis", the rising of the sun). This would mean, more or less, the period at which the sky was visibly bright.

The reason for selecting this time was undoubtedly so that Mass would not fall before celebration of Lauds, that part of the Divine Office which was intended to open the day. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The office of Lauds was supposed to be recited at dawn." It seems likely that this general directive could be interpreted differently by various priests, and surely some priests celebrated Lauds quite early in the morning. Hence the directive in the 1917 Code made sure that no matter how early Lauds was celebrated, Mass would come after it. (In convents or monasteries which celebrate the Divine Office, the first Mass of the day is often celebrated immediately after, or at least very shortly after, the end of Lauds.


Keep the law OR nail to the cross? I have seen two views about the laws of the old testament in the bible. One view is  where Jesus himself says "keep the Law" while in the other Paul says that "the Law has been nailed to the cross"

This is odd, but both these teachings are in contradiction. I was hoping to get a clarification if the Law should be kept or nailed to the cross??

Please provide some verse of the bible and not personal opinions.

Quotes from the bible are below....

In the gospel, Jesus says....

  Matthew 5:18

  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

  Matthew 5:19

  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But Paul says...

  Colossians 2:14

  having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

There are three types of the law in the Bible:

moral (part of which are also 10 commandments),
ceremonial (for example Hebrew ceremonial holidays and activities),
civil (Hebrew "country laws" and punishments)

Most christians agree, that ceremonial and civil laws are not binding anymore (ceremonial laws pointed to Christ and ended with the cross).

The most interesting question is if the 10 commandments are binding for a christian. Does Jesus want you to "have other gods" or "commit adultery" or steal?

I think he doesn't want us to do that...

Colossians 2:14 is speaking about ceremonial laws (the regulations which were nailed to the cross were Hebrew ceremonial laws), Matthew 5:18.19 is speaking about moral law (10 commandments) and both teachings are in harmony.


Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments? I have heard that interference from Moscow has been the cause of some dissent and even a schism within the Russian Orthodox Church in America. I think the very existence of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church of America is proof positive that at the least there was once an issue with control from the state.

Are the various branches of Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Greek, Russian, etc) independent today or are there are still ties to the respective states?

The commingling of states with Orthodoxy is a recent (19th century) historical phenomenon known as phyletism, and has to do with the rise of nationalism. This is why you see Macedonian, Greek, Russian, etc. Orthodox churches. Patrick J. Deneen explains how nationalism became a prominent ideology in western culture:

  “[There is] an impulse that can be dated back to the beginnings of the
  modern era and the rise of the state. Before the latter’s ascent,
  memberships in various social settings were overlapping and varied,
  ranging from families, neighborhoods, townships, boroughs, regions,
  guilds, Church (parish and Catholic), nation, even empire.

  The state undermined competing allegiances by demanding primary
  allegiance to itself alone, and only secondarily and ‘voluntarily’ to
  these preexisting institutions. Such memberships became less and less
  ‘constitutive.’ Rather, such associations and memberships came to be
  viewed as secondary to our primary allegiance to a State that reserves
  the right to control, oversee, and define any other institution….

  The only liberty that could be recognized was the liberty of
  individuals to ‘pursue his or her own ends.’ The ancient rights,
  privileges, immunities and liberties of institutions—the Church,
  universities, guilds, localities—were redescribed as forms of
  oppression. The increased power, even intrusiveness, of the state, was
  justified not as a form of oppression, but rather in the name of
  liberation of the individual….

  During the bloody twentieth century, the Church stood against the
  totalitarian ambitions of Fascism and Communism. A third ideology is
  clearly flexing its muscles today—threatening to make those victories
  of the last century merely Pyrrhic. The totalitarian impulse today is
  embedded in the very logic of liberalism, which seeks to expand its
  dominion into every aspect of life and against every competitor to its
  demand for the exclusive allegiance of individuals. We need to keep
  firmly in mind the picture that adorns the Leviathan, and resist our
  absorption as individuals into the body of the state by retaining
  deep, abiding, and even primary allegiance to family, locality, and
  Church.”

Phyletism is a confusion between church and nation, and was officially condemned by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1872 (yet the practice still remains and is one of Orthodoxy's main problems).

Despite differing national affiliations, Eastern Orthodox Christians are members of one Church and share the Orthodox faith. These affiliations indicate what language and ecclesiastic jurisdiction the church falls under, but they are still considered to be members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The respective governments of these nations are not necessarily in charge of these churches, rather they fall under a bishop in that country. Another question on C.SE explains further that Orthodox Christians of different ethnic affiliations share the same faith.


Are there explicit statements in the New Testament about the purpose of life? Is the purpose of life directly and explicitly addressed in the New Testament? Most of the citations I found are implicit at best.

Here are just a handful of New Testament verses relating to life purpose (based on Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life):

  Revelation 4:11 (NLT):
  “You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power. For you created all things, and they exist because you created what you pleased.”

  Hebrews 2:10A (NCV):
  God is the One who made all things, and all things are for his glory. He wanted to have many children share his glory

  Colossians 1:15 (MSG):
  We look at this Son and see God’s original purpose in everything created.

  John 17:4 (MSG):
  I glorified you on earth by completing down to the last detail what you assigned me to do.

  Acts 20:24 (NCV):
  The most important thing is that I complete my mission, the work that the Lord Jesus gave me — to tell people the Good News about God’s grace.

These respectfully correspond to the 5 purposes that we've been given (based on the book mentioned above):

You were planned for God's pleasure
You were formed for God's family
You were created to become like Christ
You were shaped for serving God
You were made for a mission

The verses above are, of course, a very incomplete list. There are apparently 350 references to the Bible in The Purpose Driven Life which point to many more verses.

It's well worth the read for any that are interested in a more complete answer to the question of purpose from a Christian worldview, and it includes a great number of verses to support it.


Doctrine of biblical inerrancy and Pope Benedict XVI questioning the historicity of passage in the Gospel of Matthew? "In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI, besides repudiating placing blame on the Jewish people, questioned the historicity of the passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew which has the crowd saying, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Wikipedia). How does this questioning fit in with the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

To make a clarification: I do not believe in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus then, or at any point of time. I do not believe in collective guilt at all for that matter.

Scripture is inerrant. Man is not.

The Bible needs to be interpreted. Even a translation is an interpretation, because the translator needs to decide what a passage means in order to put it into another language to be read at a different point in history. It is also necessary to determine whether transcription errors have crept in over time.

The Catholic Church has Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation promulgated in 1965 by Pope Paul VI following the Second Vatican Council:

  ... There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.6
  Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2:42, Greek text), so that holding to, practising and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. 7

  But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on8, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church9, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

  It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

  cf. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: Denzinger 783 (1501).
  cf. Pius XII, apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov. 1, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) p. 756; Collected Writings of St. Cyprian, Letter 66, 8: Hartel, III, B, p. 733: "The Church [is] people united with the priest and the pastor together with his flock."
  cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 3 "On Faith:" Denzinger 1792 (3011).
  cf. Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis, Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 (3886).

Thus the authentic interpretation of the word of God, showing how God has revealed himself through the efforts of man in attempting to act according to the will of the Spirit, is entrusted to the Magisterium. "This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

What this method of interpretation does is — to draw an analogy from mathematics and statistics — smooth out any "outliers" in the data. These may be singular passages in Scripture as here, or wacky individual teaching about Scripture.

It may well be that Matthew's account accurately reports what the writer heard at the time from those around him in the crowd; perhaps the Spirit wanted the writer to encourage his Jewish audience to consider Christ's fate at the hands of the mob, having adduced many Old Testament prophecies to prove him the Messiah, and that passage was the clumsy human result. It doesn't necessarily mean that God intends the entire Jewish people to be blamed in perpetuity — and for what? For bringing about salvation!

So one can say that the Bible is inerrant, because "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16) But in order that it is profitable, it needs to be interpreted. The Catholic Church does it in one particular way.
In Protestantism, Richard Hooker (1554–1600) formulated the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, with each of those concepts depending on the other two. There isn't the Magisterium in non-Catholic Churches, but it can be seen that in order to interpret Scripture, the deposit of Tradition is needed, together with the exercise of Reason to make sense of any apparent inconsistencies. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God", but it still requires human action to write it down in the first place — and that writing-down is limited by their own understanding and world-view — and to make sense of it thereafter.


Does a Catholic bishop appoint the Canon priests of his cathedral? I hope to learn whether the Prebendary Agustín Fernández de San Vicente became Canon of the Durango Cathedral because he was appointed by Bishop Castañiza of Durango or for some other reason.

Fernández was previously chaplain of the naval company at San Blas and before that, priest of Tamazula, Nueva Vizcaya.

The short answer to this question is possibly.

  Manner of appointment

  As only the Holy Father can erect a chapter, so also he alone has power to appoint the individual members of a chapter. This power may be, and in fact is delegated, and hence canons are appointed sometimes by the pope, sometimes by the bishop or the capitular body, sometimes by others to whom the right has been given. By the rules of the Roman Chancery all prebends which become vacant in curia (i.e. when one who holds a benefice dies in Rome) are reserved to the Holy See, also the appointment to a vacant prebend the former holder of which has been deprived of it by an act of the Holy See, the appointment of the first dignitary of each chapter, and to all other prebends which become vacant during the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November. Beyond this the law does not expressly state in whom resides the power to collate to cathedral canonries and prebends, but the general opinion is that the right is invested simultaneously in the bishop and chapter; therefore for a valid election the majority of the canons must agree with the bishop when a new appointment is made. Exceptions are made in the following cases: if from the foundation of the church or benefice the appointment belongs to a particular person; if there is an immemorial custom to the contrary; the appointment of the canon theologian and the canon penitentiary; the canons in France (Deshayes, Memento Juris Eccl., 3d ed., Paris, 1903). Appointment is practically always made by letter, and possession of a canonry cannot be obtained until the nominee presents his letter of appointment. The Council of Trent orders that on the day of taking possession, or at least within two months, the new canon is to make his profession of faith and also obedience to the bishop. This profession of faith is made to the bishop himself or, if he be absent, to the vicar-general or another delegated for this purpose. The profession of faith must be made in presence of the chapter, otherwise the new canon may be deprived of possession and the prebendal fruits and daily distributions. - Canon (Catholic Encyclopedia)


Where did angels get their wings? The Bible does not record angels having wings at any point, but this is a popular depiction of angels. Do any Christian groups teach that angels do have wings, in extra-biblical materials? Where does the idea come from?

The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.

  In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a
  throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the
  temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two
  he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he
  flew. 3And one called to another and said:  "Holy, holy, holy is the
  LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

Isaiah 6:1-3 ESV

  The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the
  mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the
  mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

Exodus 25:20 ESV

  He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house. And the wings
  of the cherubim were spread out so that a wing of one touched the one
  wall, and a wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; their
  other wings touched each other in the middle of the house.

1 Kings 6:27 ESV

It is also assumed that the four living creatures are angelic beings, since it's hard to imagine what else they could be:

  And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"

Revelation 4:8


When the Bible says "forever," how can we tell it really means forever? For instance, it is clear that God wanted the Sabbath laws to continue forever, based on these passages:

  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe
  the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant
  (Exodus 31:16).

  Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually,
  being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant
  (Leviticus 24:8).

  It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your
  souls, by a statute for ever (Leviticus 16:31).

  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from
  one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,
  saith the LORD (Isaiah 66:23).

And yet systems in the OT do come to an end. Look at these two passages:

  And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the
  bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a
  perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons
  (Exodus 29:9).

We know from Hebrews 7:11-12 that Aaron’s office has been shut down:

  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
  it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
  another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
  called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed,
  there is made of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:11-12).

Perhaps the words for perpetual and related words actually mean "a very long time," and not forever. Perhaps they are to be understood in a colloquial sense like when we say, "It took forever for the bus to get here," and they are not to be taken literally.

There are people in Christianity who believe that we should follow the Law because it continues forever, even though it has been fulfilled in Christ and put aside, according to the book of Hebrews and other books.

Under which conditions, or on what basis, are we to understand when the Bible really means forever when it uses such words?

While both עולם (olam) and Greek αἰών (aiōn) can mean "eternity," they can also be limited to a particular duration of time or "an age."
Olam Ha-Zeh and Olam Ha-Ba
The Jews typically divided time into two ages or worlds (עולמים): "this age/ world" or עולם הזה (olam ha-zeh), and "the age/ world to come," or עולם הבא (olam ha-ba). In this particular context, we know that עולם couldn't possibly be understood as "eternity," since there would not be a "this eternity" and an "eternity to come." For more information, see the Jewish Virtual Library.
Contexts Denoting Finite Duration
There are certainly contexts in scripture wherein עולם simply cannot refer to "eternity."
For example, in Exo. 21:6 (KJV), it is written,

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אֹו אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנֹו בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדֹו לְעֹלָם

Here, the English phrase "for ever" is translated from the Hebrew word לְעֹלָם (le'olam). But, could a slave really serve a master for eternity? Such is not possible, since every slave was mortal and would eventually die. In fact, what this tells us is that death frees man from the commandments (cp. Rom. 7:1-4). This is why a Jew who is born again is no longer under any obligation to keep the commandments of the Old Covenant (i.e., the Torah), including the Sabbath. Now, if by chance particular commandments were ratified under a New Covenant, then an individual would keep those, for it's an entirely different covenant.
In addition, Rashi says that the phrase לְעֹלָם in Exo. 21:6 does not mean eternity, but rather, עד היובל (ad ha-yovel, i.e. until the "Jubilee," which occurs every 50th year; cp. Lev. 25:54). So, in theory, if a master had taken a slave on the 49th year and 360ish day of the year, and the 50-year Jubilee occurred a few days later, the slave was able to go free. Ergo, לְעֹלָם may only refer to a few days.

Many learned Jewish scholars have contended that the Torah of Moshe is eternal because various words used in reference to commandments seem to imply eternality. On the other hand, other learned Jewish scholars have contended that these words do not imply the eternality of the Torah.
In his treatise ספר העיקרים (Sefer ha-Ikkarim), Rabbi Yosef Albo (1380–1444) of Spain wrote,

יש מי שחשב להביא ראיה לנצחיות תורת משה ממה שנמצא בכתוב בקצת מצוות יזכיר לשון חוקת עולם ובקצתם לדורותיכם ובקצתם אות היא לעולם...אבל לא באו אלו הלשונות להורות על נצחיות התורה כלל, כי אפשר לומר שבהבטל שאר המצוות יבטלו אלו גם כן.

which is translated as,

There are those who have thought to introduce proof of the eternality of the Torah of Moshe from that which is found in scripture with a few of the commandments. They mention the expression "חוקת עולם" ("a statute of an עולם"), and לדורותיכם ("in your generations"), and אות היא לעולם ("it is a sign לעולם")...But these expressions are not introduced to indicate the eternality of the entire Torah, for it is possible to assert that when the rest of the commandments are abolished, these will likewise [be abolished].

Sefer ha-Ikkarim, Book III, Ch. XVIII
Furthermore, he wrote,

מלשון עולם או עד עולם או חוקת עולם או לעולם אין ראיה, כי כבר ימצאו אלו הלשונות ודומיהן על זמן מוגבל, לא על זמן בלתי בעל תכלית.

which is translated as,

Neither is there any proof from the expression עולם (olam) nor עד עולם (ad olam) nor חוקת עולם (chukkat olam) nor לעולם (le'olam), for these expressions and their like are already found [to be] until a limited time, not an infinite time.

ibid
One example Albo gives is Pro. 22:28, in which it is written,

Do not remove the landmark of [עֹולָם] which your fathers made.
אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עֹולָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבֹותֶיךָ

Clearly, this landmark could not have been made by their fathers in eternity. Rather, the גְּבוּל was a boundary made for a plot of land made by one's ancestors. When a father died, this land was inherited by a child. Hence, the commandments instructs one not to re-define the boundary, as it would infringe on another person's land (cp. Deut. 19:14). Thus, we see that עֹולָם in this particular context does not refer to eternity.


Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people? There are numerous instances in the Bible where Jesus drives out demons from people who were possessed by them. If we take a general view of these events during the ministry of Jesus, we find that there were a number of such miracles performed by Jesus apart from other miracles. Sometimes these demons were themselves testifying about who Jesus was.

Recently we saw even Pope Francis performing what was called as exorcism on one of the visitors to him. So we can say that it is something similar to what Jesus was doing during His ministry.

The question is why this practice of driving out of demon is not very common nowadays in Christianity? And Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people?

Acts 16:18 (NIV)  She kept this up for
  many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and
  said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come
  out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

Apostle Paul cast out the evil spirit by using the name of Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes Jesus Christ is given the power to drive out demons by faith and prayer.

  Mark 16:16-18 (NIV) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
  but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will
  accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out
  demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes
  with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt
  them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will
  get well.”

Some evil spirits are so powerful that it require more prayer and faith.

  Mark 9:29 (NIV) He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

As we can see in these verses, it's quite simple. It only require faith and prayer followed by pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ. But the most problematic here is having faith, which can be achieved through prayer and experience only. I myself once participated in an exorcism performed by our pastor. All we did was pray, sing songs and command the evil spirit to come out in the name of Jesus Christ, and it worked :-)

The methodology is simple. Prayer, Fasting and Commanding in the name of Jesus Christ. But it is not easy. Method is simple, but not easy to carry it out. It needs a lot of faith, personal relationship with God and patience.


Are some spiritual gifts more important than others? 1Co 12:28  And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

Although by position apostleship is first, does this mean it is also the most important of the gifts...

Answer: No.

The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12 is very simple and very straight forward - you should not boast about your Spiritual gift, because gifts don't make anyone special.

Indeed, if one is arguing about which gifts are "better", then you are missing the point of - get this - the gift. A gift is not dependent on the work of the recipient, but rather of the giver. Theologians have long held that the Corinthian church - oft beset by division and discord - were arguing precisely over such silly questions as "which is the most important gift," using their gift as evidence of "their" importance.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19 lays the problem out plainly:

  In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

In this situation, Paul unequivocally says - "KNOCK IT OFF! Your gifts are all equally important in God's sight!" And how do we know that this is the case?  Just about every word in chapter 12 is an admonition or an explanation that says - Your gifts don't make you any better than anybody else!

All gifts are from the same source

  There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

All gifts are gifts to be used to the same end in love for others

  Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good

All gifts are to be used together in concert - like as in the body

  Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

  15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body

Finally, and most importantly, If you have to pick a "greatest gift" - it's love

  Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesd ? Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. And yet I will show you the most excellent way.

Whereupon we get the famous 1 Corinthians 13 - the hymn to love.

  If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. ... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the context in which Paul lays out these gifts, he goes to extarordinary lengths to make it clear - the gifts are not what is special, but rather the giver. As Christians, the gift is just that - a gift which is supposed to be used for building up the body. The moment it becomes a point of pride - an idol - it ceases to be that.


Why does the Bible talk only about the people of Israel? I am reading the Bible through these days, and I can say that I am a little surprised. I think God wants all the people, and that is why we are created. I don't understand why the Bible talks only about Israel, only about its people and its kingdom. In the Exodus, it is said that God killed every first male child of the Egyptians to let the Israel go. How can this happen, of course it can't be true. Why would God hate some of His people and love without conditions the some other people?

There are several issues you bring up that need to be addressed in this question, and it is going to take a little space.
Only Israel?
You are correct in your assumption that God loves the whole world and not just Israel.  However, Israel was, indeed, specifically chosen as part of God's plan to proclaim His name throughout the world.
Here is a general summary of the Bible.

God created mankind in His own image to live in relationship with God and to fill the world with such people.  (Genesis 1-2)
Mankind rejected God's authority and thus incurred God's righteous judgment for doing so. (Genesis 3)
The rest of the Bible is the record of God reaching out to draw mankind back into a relationship with Himself and to pay the appropriate penalty that mankind incurred.

Israel was just one part of God's plan to draw all mankind back to Himself.  Israel played a vital role from about 2000 B.C. to about 33 A.D..  Although it only plays significantly for 2,000 years, it does comprise the vast majority of the Bible.
Still, God's choosing of the Jewish people was specifically to be a blessing to the entire world:

And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3 And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will [d]curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”  Genesis 12:2-3 NASB

In the Jewish Temple itself, there was the Court of the Gentiles specifically designed for non-Jews to come and worship God.
Yet, God does not love Israel without condition.  Time and time again, God judged Israel for their own rebellion against Him.  Psalm 78 shows Israel's cycle of rebellion against God and God's judgment of them, and there are many instances of this.
In Numbers 21, God delivered a great victory for them, and shortly thereafter they began grumbling against God, doubting His promise and love and provision.  As a result, God brought judgment upon them.
Egypt
The Egyptians worshiped false gods of their own making who were no gods at all and actually worshiped the pharaohs themselves as gods.  Worshiping false gods often degrades into horrific practices like the offering of babies as sacrifices.  God desired to show the Egyptians that they were worshiping false gods, and He desired to draw them back into a relationship with Him.  He did this by great signs and wonders, including 10 plagues.  These 10 plagues were basically a showdown between God and the gods of the Egyptians--the god of the Nile, the god of the harvest, the god of the sky, etc., and finally the god of the line of the pharaohs.  God won the showdown, and it is important to note that the whole purpose was for the Egyptians to know who God really is.

The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.  Exodus 7:5 NASB

It is true, in fact, that God did kill every firstborn of Egypt, but this was not without warning.  God righteously judged Egypt for their rebellion against Him, but He also provided a way to escape His judgment through the offering of the Passover Lamb.  This provision was open to anyone.
God always does this.  In the days before the flood, Noah proclaimed that judgment was coming, but only his own family responded and entered God's provision for escape from judgment.
So, God does not hate people.  God loves all people and desires that all would return to Him.  The fact that God judges does not mean that He has to hate.  He upholds His own justice, but He does not hate.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 NASB

God's Judgment and Mercy
So, God will always bring judgment, but He always offers a pardon to those who will accept it.  The penalty for rebellion against God's authority, which is really high treason, is to be separated from God.  God also has the right to take the life He has given when it is used in rebellion against Him.  However, His desire is always that people would respond to His offer of mercy.
God the Son entered into the world, being named Jesus, and took upon Himself the penalty which we ourselves deserved for our rebellion against God.  Because of this, He can righteously say that our penalty is paid and justice has been served.  This is the whole essence of Christianity.  Our penalty and debt is paid by another, if we will only accept that in faith.  If we attempt to pay off our own debt or reject His offer, then we will indeed pay the penalty for our own rebellion.
Still, many absolutely reject this offer and do not want to live in relationship with Him.  Someone put it this way... either we say to God, "Your will be done" and accept His offer of mercy, or God will say to us, "Your will be done" and give us our choice to live apart from Him.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.  1 Peter 3:18 NASB
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.  John 3:36 NASB

All Nations
God does, indeed, love all nations.  The baton was passed, in a sense, from the Jewish people to the Gentiles in the early days of the church.  To be sure, the first Christian missionaries were all Jewish, and there have always been Jewish believers whom God has used in mighty ways to take the message of salvation and forgiveness to all people.
The concept of all nations comes first in the first chapter of the book of Genesis:

"God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..."  Genesis 1:28a

This gets carried along with Noah:

“As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”  Genesis 9:7

We see it in Abraham's call as noted above.  It is in the Psalms as well:

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.  Psalm 22:7 NASB

It is in prophecies of the Messiah:

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”  Isaiah 49:6 NASB

It is in the Great Commission:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"  Matthew 28:19 NASB
"but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”  Acts 1:8 NASB

Finally, the prophecy is fulfilled in Revelation:

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying,  “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”  Revelation 7:-10 NASB

CONCLUSION
So, God loves all people and desires that all would accept His provision for the payment of their sin.  He does not love some people without condition and hate others for no reason.  In fact, He offers all people forgiveness of their sin, but He does not force anyone to love Him against their will.  He does righteously judge those who rebel against Him, but always provides a way of escape.