What is the argument supporting that there is a break between the 69th and 70th week in the book of Daniel? In the book of Daniel it mentions the 70 weeks.

  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
  The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. (Daniel 9:25 NKJV)

It is been said that an interval between the 69th and 70th week is described here:

  “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26 NKJV)

Can someone explain why we should not consider the 70 weeks of years to be completed already?

Gathered Calculations :: Start
The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year. 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.

The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.5 (The emphasis in the verse on "the street" and "the wall" was to avoid confusion with other earlier mandates confined to rebuilding the Temple.)

During the ministry of Jesus Christ there were several occasions in which the people attempted to promote Him as king, but He carefully avoided it: "Mine hour is not yet come".

This is the only occasion that Jesus presented Himself as King. It occurred on April 6, 32 A.D.9

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

Ref: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/
Gathered Calculations :: End

Since events truly did take place after the sixty-two weeks and also before the seventieth week. I see those as fulfilled. But I do not see it specifically mention a gap between the 69th week and the 70th. So why should we not conclude that the fulfillment of the 70th week has already occurred Ending around March 1, 39 A.D.?

Background

The premise of the "gap" of Daniel's 70 weeks is both structural and doctrinal.

There is no immediate indication in the text that it is required, except for the initial breakdown of the 70 weeks into three groups.  7 weeks, 62 weeks, and the final week.

Depending on many variables, various dates for both the decree and the crucifixion, as well as different terminal points for the 69th week have been suggested.  Added to this, the text itself (Daniel 9:24-27) is difficult to accurately translate and then to understand, or at least to convince others of your translation/interpretation.

The Argument

The premise for the "gap" is, then, based on the structure.  The final week is separated from the 7 and 62 weeks.  While the 7 and 62 were without breaks, the argument holds that the there holds the possibility that there could be a break there.

More specifically, the doctrinal portion comes into play, claiming that the fulfillment of the "six things" of Daniel 9:24 has not yet occurred by Israel as a whole, and so that, due to the Jews rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, "the clock stopped", and the plan of God was put on hold.  This is reflected in the larger system of "dispensationalism", which holds that the Kingdom was offered but rejected in Jesus' time, and it will be re-offered in the future.

Additionally, it is pointed out that even many opponents of a 2,000 (or so) year gap often adopt a "shorter gap", namely, the 33 or so years until 66 AD, or 3 1/2 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  This is because, for many, the 3 1/2 years mentioned in Revelation are often interpolated in the light of Daniel 9's 70th week, as in the "midst", or middle, of the 70th week, Messiah was "cut off" (karath).

Daniel 9:26 then becomes of importance, because it mentions the destruction of the temple and the city, by some interpretations.  This is pointed out by defenders of the 2,000 year gap, because this event certainly did not happen until approximately 33 years after the crucifixion (again, depending upon the specific dates used).  Because Daniel 9 references events that would have to be OUTSIDE of the 490 years themselves, it is argued that there is already a purported 33 year gap at least, and, then, on the basis of that, extending that to 2,000 years is "relatively easy".

The Summary

Thus, as the argument goes, the Jews will be offered yet another chance at the Kingdom.  This time, they will fulfill the six things of Daniel 9, including putting away sin, sealing up vision and prophecy, etc.

These are viewed as the "final seven years of history", as after this, the "Kingdom Age", the proposed Millennium (Revelation 20:1-6), would come.  This is supported by similar time periods in the book of Revelation, presented as varying forms of roughly 3 1/2 years (figuring a 360 day year, in general).

Simply by correlating the various 3 1/2 and 7 year portions in Daniel and Revelation, it is then argued that these periods of time are the same, and that, because much of Revelation is thought to be future, and the first 69 weeks have already occurred, there remains the possibility, now a necessity, that this seventieth week is yet future.

Since the text does not explicitly claim a contiguous 70 weeks, they enter in on the possibility of it, as I understand, on the necessity of the remainder of their position.

Rebuttal

Having presented the case as fairly as I am able, I will point out briefly a few weaker points of it.

The 7 and 62 weeks are contiguous, why shouldn't the 70th week be as well.
The system relies upon the city of Jerusalem to be built, destroyed, rebuilt, and destroyed again, as the 70th week entails is destruction.  Since the prophecy itself contains its rebuilding, and does not contain its destruction and re-re-building, it adds weight that this may not be.
The prophecy records a "moat" and "plaza", as interpreted by some.  As these are very specific details of a particular city, it would appear that only the historical Jerusalem, with those historical features, would suffice.
The argument hinges upon the idea that the 6 things had to be fulfilled.  It states that since they were not, they prophecy was put on hold.  This argument fails on two accounts.  First, it can be conjectured that the six things WERE fulfilled fully, particularly by those who believed.  Simply because only some believed and others did not does not invalidate the belief of those who did believe.  Second, the prophecy is about the period of time to fulfill the 6 conditions, and not the actual fulfillment of them.  That is, God promised the time period, not that they actually would.  Compare this to, "You have until April 15th to file your taxes".  You are promised the time period, not your compliance.  Failure to meet the condition simply results in greater consequences, but does not invalidate the original decree, which was only for the time period.
The argument generally stems from a dispensationalist viewpoint, or the 'Kingdom' aspect of it.  The general line of thought behind it usually holds some form that the church is a 'parenthesis' in the plan of God, and that the 'Kingdom' is coming as a physical rule in the 'Millennium'.  However, this does not hold, despite anyones view of what the Millennium may or may not be, because in the last 2 verses of the book of Acts (Acts 28:30-31), Paul is right there proclaiming the Kingdom of God.  In fact, all through the epistles, it is the Kingdom that he is preaching, right there and then.  The notion that God has 'put the Kingdom on hold' does not find support in the New Testament, despite Dispensationalist claims to the contrary (in my appraisal of the text).
Taking into account that the Jewish calendar was built upon a 7-year cycle (and, additionally, a 7*7+1 cycle of the Jubilee), the similarity of 7-year, and 3 1/2 year periods becomes less of an identificational marker.  Simply because there are multiple mentions of a 3 1/2 year period does not, in the light of a 7-year cycle very familiar to the Jewish people, does not constitute sufficient proof in itself that these all refer to the same time period.  It could just as easily be an issue of the calendar.

In short, the failure of the majority Jewish people accept Christ as their Messiah does not invalidate the fulfillment of the 6 things of Daniel 9:24.  Further, while the argument that Christ is cut off "after the 69th week", before the 70th week is mentioned, does not explicitly indicate a period of time elapsed between them.

Further, while some Preterists yet insert a "gap" of roughly 33 years, from the crucifixion to 3 1/2 years before the 70 AD time-period, this, also is not necessary unless you equate specific time periods on the basis of them both being of the same duration (3 1/2 years, as already stated, should not be sufficient proof).

The argument against any gap, for a contiguous 70 7's, points out that there is no claim that all of the last few events of Daniel 9:26-27 must happen within the 70 weeks, but are the mere outcome of those events situated within them.  The differentiation comes in where v26 says Messiah will be cut off "after" the 69 weeks (hence, is that directly after, or is 3 1/2 years later still "after", but within the 70th week), while v27 says that in the middle of the last seven (or, week), "he" would put an end to sacrifice.

Personal Opinion

While "After" affords a sufficient grounds for flexibility, some would say, there remains debate on whether the 69th week ends with His baptism or His triumphal entry.

If it is His baptism, karath, or "cut off" (in my opinion), could refer to His baptism (karath, in its third use in the Scripture, is used for circumcision, of which baptism is a type), leaving him with "nothing" (John 2:24).  Then, in the middle of the week, 3 1/2 years later, he was cut off.  For the duration of this 3 1/2 years of ministry, plus 3 1/2 years afterwards, the invitation was still to the Jewish people, and Christ confirmed His Word, before and after (before is clear, after is Mark 16:20, Christ confirmed His Word by the signs that accompanied it).

This would have been terminated, then, roughly 3 1/2 years after the cross, possibly corresponding to the timeframe of the stoning of Stephen, and the subsequent salvation of Paul, wherein, the Jews demonstrated their adamant desire to reject the plan of God, and God chose a man, Saul of Tarsus, that the Gospel for the Jew would then go over to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy.

Thus, in this understanding, the 70th week would follow continguously on the 69, but the necessary conclusion of this interpretation would be that the 3 1/2 year time frames of Revelation must then refer to a separate time frame than that of Daniel's 70th week, which is, indeed, what I would claim, seeing as there is nothing special about such a timeframe, as stated, when one considers the typical Jewish 7-year cycle, being the outline of God's calendar.


Were paid indulgences compulsory prior to the Reformation? Luther's 95 Theses were a refutation of selling indulgences on the part of the Catholic Church.  Did he, or others, believe that the Church was saying that:

The only way to be a good Christian was to purchase an indulgence
Were indulgences a public or private matter (I mean, did you show them off)?
The sale of indulgences was a benign form of alms giving
The sale of indulgences were a form of extortion by the Catholic Church
The only way to assure one of salvation was through the purchase of indulgences
Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation

How did Luther's viewpoint compare to that of the common man?

When the 95 Theses were first published, Luther actually supported the idea of indulgences:

  #75. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

The problem was that

They were being "sold" (you had to donate to get one, actually selling them had been excommunicable for something like 100 years at that point)
They were being treated as a "get out of jail free" card (people were saying that they did not need confession because they had indulgences).
He did not see why the Pope didn't simply empty purgatory.

It was not commonly taught that:

"Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation". Indulgences have to do with purgatory, not hell. If that is something which the Catholic Church has been accused of, then it is something which only happened recently.
"You were not a good person if you didn't buy." There is no real record of this position either. Indulgences had to do with forgiveness. Theoretically, a person who was good enough should not need them.

As far as showing them off, well, they were on pieces of paper, so people could. I don't really know why you'd want to though... it's a proclamation that you've sinned.


Why do some Christians interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years? I was pleasantly surprised to see the popularity of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy held by Christians across multiple denominations in an recent question about "the fulness of time". In it, one day in prophecy, is interpreted as one year, and predicts the year of Jesus' ministry and death.
For those who hold this view, what is the basis for some to then interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years?
Would it not be more consistent to continue the interpretation that one prophetic day is equal to one calendar year, as per other Christian Historicist understandings?
As background, 1260 days is equal to 42 months (42 x 30 days), and is equal to a time, times and half a times (360 + 360 x2 + 180 days)

"the women fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days." Rev 12:6
"And to the women were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness in to her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time" Rev 12:14
"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." Rev 11:2-3
"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." Dan 7:25
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." Rev 13:5

Whether a day is interpretted as a literal day or as a year depends on the context.  Interpretters looked at the 70 sevens of the Daniel 9 and almost unanimously decided it cannot be literal days, but it could be years. (However, some interpretters duck the whole issue and go for an indeterminate length of time.)

With the 1290 days (Daniel 12:11) and 1335 days (Dan 12:12), though, the context suggests literal days. How could an individual patiently wait for the coming of 1335 years? (Dan 12:12)

Daniel 8:14 says 2300 "evening-mornings":  some think that means 2300 days, and some, such as William Hendriksen, think it means a total of 2300 sacrifices, half in the morning and half in the evening making 1150 days.  Hendriksen then says this is the exact number of days that the sacrifices stopped in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, though where he gets that information I do not know.


Why did ancient catechumens delay baptism as long as possible? The Wikipedia articles on affusion and catechesis contain the following (unsourced) claims:

The most common use [of affusion], however, was for ill or dying people who could not rise from their beds. It was consequently known as "baptism of the sick". Receiving this baptism was regarded as a bar to Holy Orders, but this sprang from the person's having put off baptism until the last moment—a practice that in the fourth century became common, with people enrolling as catechumens but not being baptized for years or decades. While the practice was decried at the time, the intent of the criticism was not to encourage baptism by immersion, but to refrain from delaying baptism.

In the fourth century, a widespread practice arose of enrolling as a catechumen and deferring baptism for years, often until shortly before death, and when so ill that the normal practice of immersion was impossible, so that aspersion or affusion—the baptism of the sick—was necessary.

I find myself at a loss to come up with a motivation or explanation for this alleged behaviour.  From a post here by James T I understand early Christian communities may have imposed fairly lengthy periods of instruction for catechumens—even a period of three years would be "nothing particularly special", according to James.  The intent, on the part of the receiving church members, was to ensure the converts' beliefs were both sincere and orthodox.  However, this doesn't explain why the converts themselves would want to defer their baptism for so long after the mandatory period of instruction.  Even presuming that someone sought a Christian affiliation only to improve their social status, as Augustine of Hippo condemned, what advantage was there for them in remaining unbaptised?  And if such a person was insincere in their beliefs, why bother with a deathbed baptism at all?
So in summary, my questions are as follows:

Is it true, as the articles above state, that it was common in the distant past for converts themselves (i.e., not the church) to delay baptism for decades, or even until shortly before death?

If so, what were their reasons for doing so?

In the first centuries CE, religious instruction was at first given after baptism. In later centuries, believers were given increasingly specific instructions before being baptized, especially in the face of heresies in the 4th century.
By the fourth and fifth centuries CE, baptism had become a several-week-long rite leading up to the actual baptismal washing on Easter. During this time, catechumens attended several meetings of intensive catechetical instruction, often by the bishop himself, and often accompanied by special prayers, exorcisms, and other rites. By then, postponement of baptism had become general, and a large proportion of believers were merely catechumens (Constantine was not baptized until he was dying); but as baptisms of the children of Christians, using an adaptation of the rite intended for adults, became more common than baptisms of adult converts, the number of catechumens decreased.
The motivation for postponing baptism was likely that baptism was believed to forgive sins, so the issue of sins committed after baptism arose (the general practice of confession was not established until the 11th century CE).


Did Mary and Joseph become rich with the presents given to them by the magi? Scriptures tell us that the magi gave Mary and Joseph gold, frankincense and myrrh as presents. Although we do not know the amount given to them, it might not have been just a symbolic amount (e.g. 100 grams), as the magi were, apparently, representative of kings, if not kings themselves. As such, they were wealthy (and are traditionally represented as wealthy).

Is there any Christian tradition or author (e.g. Church Fathers) arguing that Mary and Joseph became rich with these gifts? Perhaps arguing what they did with these gifts? For example, maybe donated to the Temple?

Marc's answer and curiousdannii's comment are correct. I went to a study series where the flight into Egypt was made into an epic tragedy of escaping, being afraid, homeless and barely scraping by. Now, that's possible, but I would hope that God would be a bit more generous. So I told the group that the gold, frankincense and myrrh were enough to get the Holy Family to Alexandria, where there was a sizeable Jewish community, where they could be somewhat comfortable and to support them while Joseph did what he could. I was scolded for being so optimistic, so I never went back.


Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses church? I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses church has structure and organization for its membership.

Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and what is their role? From whom do members receive guidance and counsel?

The head of the Jehovah's Witness Church is known as the Watchtower Society.

Sorry for using Wikipedia as a reference, but apparently the JW website doesn't give out much information on them.

On the official Jehovah's Witnesses website, we can get the following information:

http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/congregations-organized/

  How Are Your Congregations Organized?

  A body of elders supervises each congregation. About 20 congregations
  form a circuit, and about 10 circuits are grouped into a district.
  Congregations receive periodic visits from traveling elders, known as
  circuit overseers and district overseers.

  Bible-based guidance and instructions are provided by a Governing Body
  made up of longtime Witnesses who currently work at the international
  offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.—Acts 15:23-29; 1
  Timothy 3:1-7.

The information about the founder also helps to understand the organizational structure:

  The modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses began at the end of
  the 19th century. At that time, a small group of Bible students who
  lived near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the United States, began a
  systematic analysis of the Bible. They compared the doctrines taught
  by the churches with what the Bible really teaches. They began
  publishing what they learned in books, newspapers, and the journal
  that is now called The Watchtower—Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom.

  Among that group of sincere Bible students was a man named Charles
  Taze Russell. While Russell took the lead in the Bible education work
  at that time and was the first editor of The Watchtower, he was not
  the founder of a new religion. The goal of Russell and the other Bible
  Students, as the group was then known, was to promote the teachings of
  Jesus Christ and to follow the practices of the first-century
  Christian congregation. Since Jesus is the Founder of Christianity, we
  view him as the founder of our organization.—Colossians 1:18-20.

Russell founded the Watchtower Society, which is the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church.

It is very difficult to get official information about the governing body from sources within the organization, but if you trust Wikipedia as a source, they do have more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Committees (and in this case, Wikipedia does seem to have plenty of footnotes and supporting links.)

Among other detailed information, it lists the current and past governing members, how the members have been selected, etc.  As a sample, here's what it's got listed for current members:

Governing Body members

  Jehovah's Witnesses began capitalizing Governing Body as a proper noun
  in 1971; The Watchtower that year announced "The present Governing
  Body comprises eleven anointed witnesses of Jehovah."[82] The original
  members of the 1971 Governing Body, all now deceased, are indicated in
  italics in the lists below.[83] Current

  As of September 2012, the following people are members of the
  Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses[7] (year appointed in
  parentheses):

  Samuel Herd (1999)[84]
  Geoffrey Jackson (2005)[85]
  M. Stephen Lett (1999)[84]
  Gerrit Lösch (1994)[86]
  Anthony Morris (2005)[85]
  Guy H. Pierce (1999)[84]
  Mark Sanderson (2012)[87]
  David H. Splane (1999)[84]


What is the biblical basis for the idea that God stores our prayers? I've heard that God stores our prayers. Where does He store them; is it in a bottle, a scroll, a book? What scripture supports this claim?

What you're learning about are advanced topics, which we discuss in a church full of prayer warriors. We're advanced in our Christian journeys in life with God.

The angels have abilities to transport items from Earth to Heaven. Prayers are taken up in bowls. Bottles are for storing tears, which people cry when they pray. Our lives are recorded in books in Heaven. Each person has a book with their name on it. It contains the deeds of what you've done in your life. All of them. When you ask Jesus to forgive you for your sins, He has angels take your book from a library & wipe over your sins with His blood. Thus God can't see your sins, because all He'd see in your book is His blood & your good deeds, which remain. If you become a prayer warrior, you can actually see Heaven & hell before death. You may not want to believe now, but when you start to experience supernatural things through prayer & faith, then you'll understand & believe.

Here are some scriptures for you:

Psalm 56:8 (NKJV) talks about tears being put into a bottle & a book

  You number my wanderings; Put my tears into Your bottle; Are they not
  in Your book?

Both Revelation & Daniel discuss the books with our deeds in them:

Revelation 20:12 (NKJV)

  And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books
  were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
  And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which
  were written in the books.

This is also found in Daniel 7:10 (NKJV)

  A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand
  thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood
  before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

Regarding prayers, which angels carry to God:

Revelation 8:3-4 (NKJV) discusses those.

  3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the
  altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the
  prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the
  throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the
  saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

To find the bowl, we use this verse from Revelation 5:8 (NKJV):

  Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the
  twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and
  golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

So we see that prayers are stored in golden bowls in Heaven. Our deeds are stored in books. Our prayerful tears are stored in bottles.

Whenever you're ready, check out some of the prayer warrior testimonies at: http://www.divinerevelations.info

God bless you! I hope that you'll continue to learn about Him! Someday, you'll find rewards in Heaven!


What is the biblical basis for humans becoming angels after they die? Many Christians, and many people living in predominantly Christian cultures, believe that people who die become angels.

This belief is reflected in numerous popular novels and movies, such as the classic 1946 American movie It's a Wonderful Life, in which a guardian angel named Clarence occasionally refers to events of his life (and death) as a human being on earth.

And when someone has died, family members and friends of the deceased person commonly speak of him or her as being an angel in heaven now.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that human beings become angels after they die?

This answer is from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), and of the various denominations that accept his theology, commonly called "New Church" or "Swedenborgian" denominations.

Swedenborg taught that there are no angels pre-created as a separate race, nor did any such pre-created angels fall from heaven to become Satan and his angels. Instead, he taught that all angels and demons were once human beings who lived in the material world, and that Satan or the Devil is a collective term for hell.

As explained more fully in my answer here, Swedenborg is the primary source of the modern-day belief that people become angels after death. Swedenborg himself, though, saw this idea as firmly based on the Bible's depiction of angels.

This answer draws heavily on the article, What the Bible Says: Where Angels Come From, which is also written from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology.

The Bible says nothing about angels being created

Genesis 1 describes the creation of "the heavens and the earth," and everything in them. And yet, in the Creation story there is no mention of God creating angels. It seems unlikely that God would leave such an important created being out of the Creation story.

The creation of angels is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, either.

The passage about "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 is often cited as evidence for pre-existing angels. However, this prophecy was not interpreted as being about a fallen angel until centuries after it was written. In the original Hebrew, the word that is translated "Lucifer" in older and more traditional translations actually refers to the morning star (i.e., Venus), using it as a metaphor for the king of Babylon.

Though there are non-Biblical texts describing angels as a separate race of beings, the Bible itself never says that they are a separate race, nor does it make any clear statements about where they come from. The idea that angels are a separate race is based more on tradition and church doctrine than on the Bible.

And as covered in the remaining points, there are many indications in the Bible that angels are indeed humans who have gone on to heaven.

The Bible often refers to angels as "men"

The Bible commonly uses the word "man"—Hebrew אִישׁ ('iysh), "man"; Greek ἀνήρ (anēr) "man" or νεανίσκος (neaniskos), "young man"—to refer to angels.

Here are some examples:

  While I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen
  before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the
  evening sacrifice. (Daniel 9:21)

Here Gabriel, who is seen by Christians as an angel based on Luke 1:19, 26, is called a "man."

The two angels (see Genesis 19:1, 15) who visited Lot in Genesis 19:1–29  are called "men" in Genesis 18:2, 16, 22; 19:10, 12, 16, and in several other verses in Genesis 18 & 19.

When an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife (Samson's parents) in Judges 13, they identified him as a "man of God," and both they and the narrator also refer to him as a "man"—although he is also clearly identified as an angel. Manoah even calls the angel "a man" when he talks to him (see Judges 13:11), and the angel does not correct him. This suggests that the angel had no problem thinking of himself as a human being like Manoah.

In Zechariah's vision of the horsemen in Zechariah 1:7–17, the lead horseman, who was "standing among the myrtle trees" is referred to both as a "man" and as an "angel."

The angel(s) at Jesus' empty tomb is(are) referred to as an angel in Matthew 28:2–7 and as two angels in John 20:11–13, but as a man in Mark 16:5–7 and two men in Luke 24:4–8.

In short, the Bible uses "angel" and "man" almost interchangeably when speaking about angels. If angels were a separate race, the Bible would not refer to them as men, or people. That would be like calling a horse a sheep, or a pig a donkey.

The fact that there is no separate word for "angel" in the Bible (see below), and that angels are commonly referred to as "men," strongly suggests that angels are humans.

Angels look like people

As seen in the passages quoted and referred to just above, when people on earth encounter angels, they commonly think that they are meeting a human being rather than an angel. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews even says:

  Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that
  some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2)

Although angels are sometimes described in the Bible as having shining faces and clothes, this is not unique to angels. Moses' face also shone after he had spoken with God (see Exodus 34:29–34). And in the final verse of the Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat in Matthew 13:24–30; 36–43, Jesus says:

  Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their
  Father. (Matthew 13:43)

So Jesus himself says that people who are righteous will shine in God's kingdom—just like the angels.

"Angel" means "messenger," not a separate race of beings

In both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, the word for "angel" simply means "messenger." It does not refer to a separate race of beings. The Hebrew word is מַלְאָךְ (mal'ak), "messenger"; the Greek word is ἄγγελος (aggelos), "messenger."

Although angels are sometimes described as great, holy, powerful, and so on, the same descriptions are also used for people. For example, both angels and people are called:

"holy ones": Daniel 4:13, 17; Daniel 8:13–14 (angels); Psalm 30:4; Psalm 16:3 (people—and many other places traditionally translated "saints")
"sons of God": Job 1:6; 2:1 (angels); John 1:12; Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:1–2 (people)
"gods": Psalm 8:5 (the word used here is elohim, "God"), quoted as "angels" in Hebrews 2:7 (angels); Psalm 82:6–7; John 10:34–35 (people)

In fact, human beings are also called "messengers" many times in the Bible, using the very same words, both in Hebrew and in Greek, that are used of angel messengers. For just a few examples, see Genesis 32:3; Deuteronomy 2:26; Joshua 6:17; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; James 2:25.

In short, "angels" or "messengers" in the Bible can be either human beings on earth or angelic beings in heaven. Both of them are described using the same words.

Angels themselves reject the idea that they are superior beings

Not once, but twice in the book of Revelation John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who was speaking to him. Both times the angel stopped him, making himself equal to human beings under God:

  At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Don't
  do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and
  sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the
  Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus." (Revelation 19:10)

  I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had
  heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel
  who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, "Don't do that! I
  am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with
  all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!" (Revelation
  22:8–9)

Jesus says that we become like angels after death

In the incident of the question from the Sadducees about the Resurrection, recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus says we will be "like" or "equal to" the angels. See Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36. And the saved are described as having powers similar to those that angels might wield. See, for example, Mark 16:17,18; 11:23; Luke 10:17,19; John 14:12.

Yes, it could be objected that just because people can be just like angels, that doesn't necessarily mean that they can become and be angels. But if it looks like an angel, walks like an angel, and quacks like an angel . . . .

Conclusion

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that angels are a separately created race of beings.

Everywhere in the Bible, angels are described as being human, as having characteristics and powers similar to those possessed by great human beings, and as engaging tasks similar to those that human beings engage in.

Further, both angels and Jesus himself make humans—especially humans who have died and been resurrected—equal to and in every way like angels.

The main difference between humans and angels is that humans live on earth while angels live in heaven. Other than that, it's difficult if not impossible to find any real differences between them. And since it is commonly believed by many, if not most, Christians that we will live in heaven after death, that would leave no differences at all between angels and humans.

Why would God create two different races of beings that look the same, speak the same, think the same, and act the same as each other?

Based on all of this, it is quite reasonable to conclude based on the Bible's stories about angels that they are indeed human beings who have gone on to the spiritual world and become angels. After all, Jesus himself said to one of the thieves on the cross:

  Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

Once again, this answer is given from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, and of the New Church or Swedenborgian denominations that accept his doctrines.

These church denominations all hold the view that there are no angels created separately, but that all angels were once people who lived in physical world, and after death went on to become angels in heaven.


What happened to Jesus' physical body after his death and resurrection? As the title asks, what do modern Christian religions believe happened to Jesus' physical body after the resurrection?

From John 20:11 - 14:

  Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to
  look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus'
  body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

  They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

  "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don’t know where they
  have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing
  there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

As far as I know, there is no further scriptural evidence or discussion concerning this.

The body of Christ ascended with him into heaven, as was witnessed by his disciples and many others.

Luke 24 (ESV):

  50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Acts 1 (ESV):

  6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

And lastly, the Apostles Creed:

  I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
  and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
  Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
  He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
  He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
   I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
  Amen.

Most modern Christians believe that Christ's body ascended with his presence into heaven after his period of ministry following his resurrection. This is borne out clearly in Luke's accounts in Luke and Acts, and is affirmed in the Apostles Creed (which many modern Christians recite regularly).


Who was the Egyptian that led the revolt of the Assassins in Acts 21? When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was mistaken for an anarchist Egyptian:

  Acts 21:37-38 ESV As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.”

There is a snippet of info about what the Egyptian did here, but it's very little. Is there any more information about this Egyptian? Specifically his name, what he did, who the Assassins were, etc...?

Here is a summary of what I found on this subject :

The Greek word for “dagger men”, used in the the quoted verse, is derived from the Latin sicarii, which means “users of the sica,” or dagger. First-century historian Flavius Josephus describes the Sicarii as a band of fanatic Jewish patriots, unrelenting enemies of Rome, who engaged in organized political killings.

Josephus adds that the Sicarii later played a leading role in the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70 C.E. Thus, the Roman commander would be anxious to detain the supposed leader of such a group.

The “Egyptian” seditionist with whom the military commander at Jerusalem confused Paul is possibly the same one mentioned by Josephus. (The Jewish War, II, 254-263 [xiii, 3-5]) His insurrection is stated to have taken place during the reign of Nero and the procuratorship of Felix in Judea, circumstances fitting the account at Acts 21:37-39; 23:23, 24.


Explain to those knowing only of the Ordinary Form of Mass, what incense is and why it is used during the Liturgy at Mass? In the Mass of Paul VI (OF = Ordinary Form) it is extremely rare throughout a liturgical year for incense to be used as compared to what is now the EF = Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Explain to say one's children who know of only the Ordinary Form of Mass, what incense is and why it is used at Mass?

The questions are: what is incense, when and why is it used in either form of the Mass, are there rubrics in the Missal determining its use in either form of the Mass? What dictated the differences in its use from the EF to the OF of the Mass?

cf. Holy Smoke - The Use of Incense in the Catholic Church

Incense as used in Christian rites, including the office of readings, as well as the Mass, is a sensory manifestation of the prayers of the faithful rising to God, as mentioned in Psalms, particularly 141:2 (RSVCE) and Revelations 5:8 (RSVCE).

This is probably more a matter of style than anything else. The incense ceremonies take time, and my own sense is that among those who favor the Ordinary Form, that what the use of incense adds to a celebration of the mass is not worth the time it takes to complete the ceremonies, while those with a preference of the Extraordinary Form are more tolerant of the time it takes, and willing to practice the patience required to attain the benefits they remember. To my knowledge nothing in the Rubrics that mandates the reduction of the role of incense in the Ordinary form, but this is not my primary area of expertise.

Please see  Incensation, 276 & 277 |  IV. SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR ALL FORMS OF MASS | GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL


What is the significance of Palm branches? I've been pondering this question for a while. With Easter right around the corner, I figured this is the perfect time to ask. See these verses:

  Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”
  Matthew 21:8-9 (ESV)

  The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”
  John 12:12-13 (ESV)

Why did the people lay palm tree branches on the road that Jesus entered on? Did this have a special significance in Jewish culture at the time?

The tradition of palm branches on Palm Sunday actually originates with the Jewish festival of Sukkoth, also called the Festival of the Tabernacles or Booths, which was probably the most popular holiday among the Jews in the first century.  In the observance of Sukkoth, worshippers processed through Jerusalem and in the Temple, waving in their right hands something called a lulab, which was a bunch of leafy branches made of willow, myrtle and palm.  As they waved these branches in that procession, the worshippers recited words from Psalm 118, the psalm normally used at Sukkoth.  Among these words were "Save us, we beseech you,  O Lord."  Save us in Hebrew is hosianna or hosanna. This is typically followed by “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord. (Ps 118:25–6).”

John Shelby Spong says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 153, says that Mark transferred the Sukkoth traditions from autumn to the Passover season and adapted them to the Palm Sunday story. Mark 11:8–9 tells us:

  Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. Those preceding him as well as those following kept crying out: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

The author of Matthew omitted the word 'leafy', perhaps a sign that he was aware that this was the wrong season for leafy branches (excepts palms), and the King James Bible also omits the word in Mark's Gospel.  Which brings us to John's Gospel.  Its author aware that just before the Passover was too early for the leafy branches of Sukkoth, John 12:12–13 clearly states that they cut down palm branches, creating the basis for the Palm Sunday tradition.


According to Catholicism can you be saved without being baptised? Is faith through Jesus Christ without baptism enough for salvation? According to the bible, “without faith, it is hard to please God”. If someone at a young age whose been baptised didn’t have faith when they reach maturity, would this cancel out the grace of salvation through baptism? Would this also be the same for those who have faith but without baptism?

Is faith through Jesus Christ without baptism enough for salvation?
Regarding baptism of desire, let the Catechism of the Catholic Church speak for itself:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and coheir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Thus infant who are baptized have been free from original sin and have become a new creature in the eyes of the Church and of God.
Babies that die after baptism are in heaven and their salvation in not in question:

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).
1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).
1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.
1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.
1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."


When and why were stained glass windows first incorporated into the design of a Christian place of worship? Many Christian churches incorporate stained glass windows into their design.

Some members have noted that the use of stained glass windows in architectural design pre-dates Christianity. That being said, I'm more concerned with their incorporation into Christian architecture, which I assume would have been done first by Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism.

What denomination or branch of Christianity first incorporated stained glass windows into their places of worship?
Why were stained glass windows used (aside from the common utility of a window), and why are they still used today?
Is there a Church tradition that they must be used in the design of a church?

Architecturally, Gothic churches required large trusses in order to support the ceiling.  This would make the buildings very dark. That said, the spaces between the trusses could be turned into windows in order to lighten the area.

Since the 400s, Mosaics had already been used both as art and as teaching tools. (See Ravenna for some of the best!) Combining the need for light with the established tradition of mosaics would have been a natural technological progression.


Do Mary and the other saints know what we are praying for before we ask them? Jesus explains that God knows what we need before we pray:

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
—Matthew 6:8 (NIV)

According to Catholicism, does the same apply for the saints? Do they know what we need before we ask them? Or do we have to actually ask them so that they are able to intercede on our behalf?

Do Mary and the other saints know what we are praying for before we ask them?

St. Thomas Aquinas say yes.

  Although the saints, after this life, know what happens here below, we must not believe that they grieve through knowing the woes of those whom they loved in this world: for they are so filled with heavenly joy, that sorrow finds no place in them. Wherefore if after death they know the woes of their friends, their grief is forestalled by their removal from this world before their woes occur. Perhaps, however, the non-glorified souls would grieve somewhat, if they were aware of the distress of their dear ones: and since the soul of Josias was not glorified as soon as it went out from his body, it is in this respect that Augustine uses this argument to show that the souls of the dead have no knowledge of the deeds of the living.

  The souls of the saints have their will fully conformed to the Divine will even as regards the things willed. and consequently, although they retain the love of charity towards their neighbor, they do not succor him otherwise than they see to be in conformity with the disposition of Divine justice. Nevertheless, it is to be believed that they help their neighbor very much by interceding for him to God.

  Although it does not follow that those who see the Word see all things in the Word, they see those things that pertain to the perfection of their happiness, as stated above.

  God alone of Himself knows the thoughts of the heart: yet others know them, in so far as these are revealed to them, either by their vision of the Word or by any other means. - Question 72. Prayers with regard to the saints in heaven


Gates of hell lock forever. What does gates of hell mean? Jonah 1:17 Jonah was inside the fish 3 days and nights. Jonah 2:2… Jonah went down to "the land whose gates lock forever" (Todays English Version) & Mat 16:18 (TEV) "not even death will be able to overcome it", (the church). Is the gates of hell (KJV) then death. Do we not fear being locked away, apart from God then if Jesus triumphed over the grave being 3 days and night in the belly of the earth/hell?

The original Hebrew is only two words: "מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאֹול", one meaning "out of the belly" and the other "grave".  Some versions translate the latter word as "Hell", but most leave it alone as "Sheol".

Today's English Version isn't really a translation of the Bible though.  It is a paraphrase.  Its original purpose was to provide a Bible that is very easy for everyone to read and understand.

In many cases they had to take liberties in deciding how to express an idea without leaving it ambiguous.  In other cases, such as Jonah 2:2, they simply got carried away by poetically saying "the land whose gates lock forever" rather than "the grave".

Today's English Version (Good News Bible) is a great introduction for someone just beginning to read the Bible.  It might be compared with a grade-school history book.  For serious study, or even for trivial questions, almost any other version provides a more reliable translation.


Why do the Seventh Day Adventists consider the Sabbath to begin on Friday at sunset? I understand that for the Jews, the beginning of the Sabbath is at 5 PM on Friday.
So why then does Sabbath start at sundown on Friday for the Seventh Day Adventists?

Seventh Day Adventism is what is known as a restorationist movement. This term is a references to their belief that something fundamental was corrupted or lost in Christianity and that their beliefs have unique insight to restore what was lost to the way it was supposed to me.

In the case of this question, they belief that the vast majority of Christianity from New Testament times on downward erred in their belief that the proper day to worship God changed after the resurrection. Throughout the Old Testament God's people always used the 7th day of the week (Saturday) as described in Genesis as the day set apart for the sabbath. Jews to this day continue that tradition.

Christians on the other hand believe that a change occurred when Christ was raised from the dead that in an senses sanctified that day, which happened to be the 1st day of the week (Sunday). Starting even in the pages of the New Testament you will find believers regularly meeting for worship, prayer, study of the Word, and sacraments on the 1st day of the week. Not a lot of explanation is given, everybody seems to just take it for granted that this was right and proper.

The SDA argument is that even these early Christians erred and that no direct mandate was given that would supersede the creation mandate for the 7th day (Saturday). They believe most of NT Christianity (and the 1900 some years since) was corrupted until their own prophet Ellen G. White set the record straight.

In the case of SDA, they have many beliefs that are different from mainstream Christianity besides just their meeting on the 7th day rather than the 1st. Similar 19th century revelations that "set the record straight" and (in their view) fix corrupted beliefs involve dietary restrictions (also from the Old Testament, discounting the revelations given to Peter about all foods being clean), and not believing in an eternal hell at all.


How is the Christian Jesus different from the Muslim Jesus? Obviously they refer to the same human being, however what are some beliefs that Christians hold about Jesus that Muslims do not share.  I ask this question in sort of an apologetic spirit so that I can explain it to others.

The simplest place to start is that Muslims view Jesus as a man with a special role as prophet. Christians view him as God himself in the flesh (incarnate). To Muslims, the idea that God had a son is blasphemy. Even though Christians view him as one in the same being (as a person in the Trinity) and thus still hold the idea of God being one, that concept does not compute in the Islamic faith.

Interestingly there is a reference in the Qur'an to Jesus being considered sinless, but the ramifications of this idea are not developed.

  Surah 19:19 (Pickthall)
  He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

Besides that detail, the rest of the story follows relatively consistently from the key identity issue of being God incarnate or just a man. In Islam, as just a prophet, Jesus plays no role in salvation and it is not accepted that he rose from the dead. Views on whether he was actually crucified vary, but the resurrection is never recognized.

In Christianity, Jesus role is not just that of a prophet (1 Peter 2:22), but also those of a priest and king -- The King: Lord of all creation and Lord of salvation.

  Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)
  15 He is the image of jthe invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.


Is it appropriate to leave a Catholic rosary in place on a cemetary headstone? Is it appropriate to put a rosary on a relatives headstone and leave it there even if it starts to discolor and rust the headstone?  Would it be a desecration of the grave if someone removed it because of possible negative effects?

I don't believe that there is any formal Catholic doctrine on the use of rosary beads (technically "a rosary" refers to the prayer, or rather sequence of prayers, not to the physical beads themselves). While the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the rosary (always referring to the prayers), it contains no description of how the beads ought to be treated. At most, it simply says in paragraph 1676:

  Pastoral discernment is needed to sustain and support popular piety [including such devotions as saying the rosary or using the rosary beads for a pious purpose] and, if necessary, to purify and correct the religious sense which underlies these devotions so that the faithful may advance in knowledge of the mystery of Christ.

If the beads are blessed, as they often are, then of course they ought to be treated with reverence.


What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? The title almost says it all:

What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? Does one contain  the other or what?
What does each one include?
Where did each one come from (or who authored each, if possible)?

Please forgive my ignorance; if the question is encyclopedic then answering the first item is enough.

First, the Bible is the entire collection of Jewish scripture (known by Christians as the "Old Testament") and Christian scripture (which also includes the "New Testament") as recognized by modern Christian groups.  Most Protestant Christian groups recognize 66 "books" (or individual pieces of literature) as their Bible. Greek Orthodox and Catholics recognize 73.  See the Wikipedia entry for Bible for a more in-depth look of what is contained within the Bible, and how various groups have different definitions.

Now, moving on to the term "Gospel."  The term "Gospel" has two meanings within Christianity.

One of the books of the Bible which tells the story of Jesus' life.  The four gospels are Gospels of (or according to) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  In this sense, the term "Gospel" serves to designate these four books (and some groups include additional gospels) as distinct from the other types of books contained in the Bible.

In this sense, the Gospels (plural) are part of the Bible.
"The Gospel" also means simply "The Good News."  So when someone says "Jesus preached the Gospel," they don't mean "Jesus told the story of his life," but they mean "Jesus preached the Good News."  That "Good News" is essentially that God forgives sins.  It can also be considered the entire story of the Bible, including the details of man's rebellion against God, and God's desire and attempt to redeem man.

In this sense, the Gospel (singular) is either:

specifically, the message that Jesus came to redeem man.
generally, the entire message of the Bible.  In this sense, The Bible is to "The Gospel" as Moby-Dick is to "the story of Captain Ahab's quest for the White Whale."   That is, the former is the title of the book, and the latter is a description of the story the book tells.


What does the phrase "God of God" means in the Nicene Creed? What does the phrase "God of God" means in the Nicene Creed?

  We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
  visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
  Father,the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God
  of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;

  By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

  Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and
  was made man;

  He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

  And in the Holy Ghost.

  But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not
  before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of
  another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or
  'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic
  and apostolic Church.

Reference:

http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4-p8.php

The phrase “God of God” means that a person came from a person ( like an offspring from a parent) and that they are of same nature. It is analogous to the phrase “Human of Human,” That is, a human offspring of a human parent.

  To beget is to produce someone to have one’s nature.

Seth is begotten of Adam. Seth and Adam are of same nature.
A human person from a human person. Therefore, Human of Human.

The Son is begotten from the Father. The Father and the Son are of same nature.A divine person from a divine person. Therefore, God of God

The phrase “God of God” originated from John 1:1.In this text, it is said that the self-knowledge and self-expression of God is “God.” That is, “the thought ( of God about himself) was God” or simply put, “the Word was God” as majority of English translation reads.Θεος in John 1:1c as well as in John 1:18a is anarthrous yet it is translated into English as a proper noun: “God.”

  John 1:1 (ESV)

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
  God, and the Word was God.

The disciple John didn't write John 1:1 in vacuum. He had Jewish ideas which helped him out to write it. In his day, the concept of the λόγος was very well known because of first century Hellenistic Judaism in the Second Temple Judaism. This is evident in the Septuagint as well as in religious Jewish writings in the inter-testamental period. Due to its popularity, John took advantage of this concept to spread the Good News. Genesis 1:1 (LXX), Psalm 45:1 (LXX), 33:6 (LXX) and Proverbs 8:22-30 (LXX) are the foundational biblical basis of John 1:1-3.

The Greek word λόγος has many meanings like speech, word, message, plan and reason. It depends on the context of the text as to what meaning it takes.

Thought and word. These definitions are what John had in his mind when he wrote John 1:1. Both definitions entails 'reasoning' ( thinking from the mind).In fact, it can simply be defined as “expression from the inside out.”

In John 1:1, the λόγος is the self-thought of God. The reason is that God alone existed before creation and is the only one present in the beginning of creation ( John 1:1-3). John 1:1 underscores God in relation to Himself. God knows in his mind that he is 'God.' KAITHEOSENOLOGOS( and God was the thought). Before anything else come into existence, only God exists and yet he was not alone for he has with Him his λόγος (self-thought, self-knowledge, self-expression).

Thinker = God

Thought = God

This is clearly the “God of God” in the Nicene Creed. It is a faithful preservation of the biblical truth in a creedal statement.

The self-knowledge of God is towards God [himself] and hence, self-expression (i.e. The Word).The Word or self-expression (from self-knowledge) is "God." God does not think that he is partly God.Rather, God thinks that he is 'God' in all his fullness.

  Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)

  For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.

According to John 1:1, the Word of God is “God of God.”

References

http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html


What is the importance of reading the Bible? I have heard many pastors encouraging their members to read the Bible daily.

Why do we have to read the Bible daily?

Is going to church and listening to sermons not enough?

The Sadducees posted a question on Christianity.SE about married life after resurrection (they didn't believe in resurrection of the dead) and Jesus replied (Matthew 22:29):

  But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Reading the bible == knowing the scriptures helps us to prevent developing erroneous views that hinder our spiritual growth or potentially lead us astray. Sometimes even preachers from the pulpit preach doctrines that have errors or even heresies in them and though the preachers responsibility is greater, the listener is not without one.


Why did Jesus say, "Do not touch me"? John 20:17:

  Jesus said, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Why did Jesus not want Mary to touch him, remembering that he allowed Thomas to touch him before he went to heaven?

The reason Jesus said this has been the subject of debate. One common belief is that He didn't want her to tarry there, that it was more of a "now is not the time" statemen. Example:

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  Touch me not - Μη μου ἁπτου, Cling not to me. Ἁπτομαι has this sense
  in Job 31:7, where the Septuagint use it for the Hebrew דבק dabak,
  which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to. From Matthew
  28:9, it appears that some of the women held him by the feet and
  worshipped him. This probably Mary did; and our Lord seems to have
  spoken to her to this effect: "Spend no longer time with me now: I am
  not going immediately to heaven - you will have several opportunities
  of seeing me again: but go and tell my disciples, that I am, by and
  by, to ascend to my Father and God, who is your Father and God also.
  Therefore, let them take courage."

Another view:

  Vincent's Word Studies

  Touch me not (μή μοῦ ἅπτου)

  The verb, primarily, means to fasten to. Hence it implies here, not a
  mere momentary touch, but a clinging to. Mary thought that the old
  relations between her Lord and herself were to be renewed; that the
  old intercourse, by means of sight, sound, and touch, would go on as
  before. Christ says, "the time for this kind of intercourse is over.
  Henceforth your communion with me will be by faith through the Spirit.
  This communion will become possible through my ascending to the
  Father."

And another, similar to the others, but emphasizing "There are other things to do right now".

  People's New Testament

  20:17 Touch me not. She was probably about to clasp his feet. She is
  told to discharge a higher duty: to go to the brethren with the glad
  story.


Literal or legend: how do Catholics treat non-Biblical miracles? I am aware that I lack expertise on this topic sorry if the question is badly worded.

There are a lot of reported miracles of the saints in Catholicism reported hundreds of years after Jesus' life, some of which are of-a-form like stigmata and some of which are very unusual like St. Denis having his head chopped off and then walking six miles preaching a sermon.

I would like to know how literally Catholic believers and the Catholic church believe these events to be? Are each of them considered a fact? Or are they thought of more as local stories/heroes or stories of moral instruction or even just there to indicate that a particular person was strong in their faith? Is it considered heresy to suggest that these events are not literally true?

If you're interested read more at http://www.catholicbibleanswers.com and let me know what you think

The Catholic Church does consider many miracles outside the Bible to be from God - they are literal miracles

Maybe the most notable miracles are the Marian apparitions (ie., appearances of Mary the mother of Jesus to many individuals across the globe)

Check out: Our Lady of Lourdes apparitions, Our Lady of Guadalupe (this miracle was how South America converted to Christianity about 500 years ago), Our lady of Fatima, etc

There are also many healing miracles


Is there a biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis? Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham.  These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens"

Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

There is no reason to limit information about the creation week to Genesis, but...

1) There are a number of good reasons to limit information about the creation week to Scripture. For instance, philosophically, the word of God is truth, and all men are corrupt and limited, which makes the revealed word of God the only reliable source for truth.

2) There is good reason to give preference to historical narrative over image-rich, emotional songs, etc. If it is a psalm, its purpose may be to praise God, but may not be to relay historical information about the creation week in a straightforward and sequential manner. (See, for example, Psalm 6:6)

3) Whenever you interpret Scripture, it is always wise to consider the purpose of the passage in question. Genesis 1 is the only passage in Scripture whose primary purpose is clearly to provide information about the creation week.

4) There is good reason to believe that most (if not all) of the information about the creation week that appears subsequent to the first two chapters of Genesis is based on the first two chapters of Genesis.

For these reasons, Genesis can easily be regarded as the best source of information about the creation week, and is certainly the first place I would go in studying the topic.


Why was taking census a bad thing? In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result.

  1 Chronicles 21:1-16: 1Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. 2So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.”
   3But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?”

  4But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem 5and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. 6But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do.

  Judgment for David’s Sin
  7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.”
   9Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: 10“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’”

  11So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. 12You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.”

  13“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.”

  14So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. 15And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

  16David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground.

But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?

You're right in that the Bible does not state why it was a sin, so we won't be able to cite verses to support any answer to this.

However, the one thing  that is clear is that Satan provoked David to take the census. The Bible doesn't explain why this is, and the there are several theories, but no Biblical statement on the matter. Clearly, however, it was Satan that provoked David to take the census, and following Satan's leading is almost certainly a sin.

The explanations that I've heard on why it was bad had to do with the motivation of David's heart in the matter.

One theory is that he was taking the census to determine the might of his army, because he was counting on this, rather than God to provide military victory and strength.  (I'm not sure I buy that one.)
Another says that it may have been pride.  David wanted to know how mighty a kingdom he had.  (Knowing how God hates pride, this is at least feasible to me.)

Unfortunately, the Scriptures don't give an answer, so in all honesty, I don't think this question is answerable in the usual sense.


What is the Catholic understanding of the idea that Jesus descended into Hell? The Christian understanding that everyone was born with origin sin, and then when Jesus/God was killed at the cross, and then he was resurrected from death after 3 days.

From what I understand, there is the idea of Jesus descending into Hell to free the spirits/souls of people.

Who were these people?  Was it everyone before his time that died?
Did it include the righteous and wicked people or prophets also?

Is this a creed based on belief only or is there scripture to back this up somewhere?

First, be careful with your statement "The Christian understanding that everyone was born with origin[al] sin". Yes, this is a common Christian belief, and it is indeed a Catholic one, but it is not universal. This is irrelevant to the rest of your question, but worth noting.
And yes, there does indeed exist the idea that Jesus descended into "Hell" between his death and resurrection, i.e. between the first Good Friday and the first Easter morning. We see this in the Apostles' Creed, for instance: "He descended into Hell". This is an event widely known as the Harrowing of Hell.
Now, the first thing to note is that this is a very different thing to what we imagine Hell to be like today. It does not mean a place of everlasting torment. It's sometimes known as the "Limbo of the Fathers". In Hebrew it is Sheol, the abode of the dead. As the Catechism says, "Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer."(CCC 633)
It was precisely the just -- those made righteous by faith in God and his promised Messiah -- who were saved by Jesus' descent into Hell: "Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him."(CCC 633)
This emphasises the totality of Jesus' redemptive work. It extends not only to those on earth, over whom God is known to have power, but also to those who have died.

The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.(CCC 633)

See also this article on EWTN.

As to its biblical foundation, there are various texts that we might point to.
The Catechism points to the following texts, among others:

When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? (Eph 4.10)
you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 3.15)
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. (Rom 8.11)
He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3.19)
For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does. (1 Pet 4.10)
Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live (Jn 5.25)


Who is Ba'al from the Old Testament? Judges 6:31 NIV

  But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to
  plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him
  shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can
  defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.

and

1 Kings 18:21 NIV

  Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver
  between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is
  God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.

However, found here

  The name Ba'al (), apparently as an equivalent for Yhwh, occurs as an
  element in a number of compound proper names, such as Jerubbaal,
  Ishbaal, Meribaal, etc. Some of these names, probably at a time when
  the name of Baal had fallen into disrepute (comp. Hosea ii. 16, 17),
  seem to have been changed by the substitution of El or Bosheth for
  Baal (comp. II Sam. ii. 8, iv. 4, v. 16; I Chron. viii. 33, 34; ix.
  39, 40; xiv. 7).

I've also seen "Baʿal of Tyre".  So is Ba'al a title or an entity?

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

  BAAL (Bāʹ ȧl)

  Lord of Canaanite religion and seen in the thunderstorms, Baal was worshiped as the god who provided fertility. He proved a great temptation for Israel. “Baal” occurs in the OT as a noun meaning “lord, owner, possessor, or husband,” as a proper noun referring to the supreme god of the Canaanites, and often as the name of a man.
  According to 1 Chron. 5:5 Baal was a descendant of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, and the father of Beerah. Baal was sent into exile by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria. The genealogical accounts of Saul’s family listed in 1 Chron. 9:35–36 indicates that the fourth son of Jehiel was named Baal.

  The noun comes from a verb that means to marry or rule over. The verb form occurs in the Hebrew text 29 times, whereas the noun occurs 166 times. The noun appears in a number of compound forms which are proper names for locations where Canaanite deities were worshiped, such as Baal-peor (Num. 25:5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10), Baal-hermon (Judg. 3:3; 1 Chron. 5:23), and Baal-gad (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5). See Canaan.

  Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., & Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (151–152). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

The basic idea is that Ba'al was a fertility god who showed up all over Caanan.  Pagan gods tend to take on different characteristics and different stories, especially when popular, and so it differentiate them, sometimes specific place names are added.

That Baal is sometimes combined with YHWH stems more from the fact that the Israelites themselves became highly syncretic, moreso than any firm sociological study that says they stem from the same place.

  Baal and Ancient Israel: The cult of Baal was widespread in the Syro-Palestinian world and became the focus of Israelite religious animosity. Baal’s consort in Palestine was not Anat, but Asherah (Judg. 3:7) or Astarte (Judg. 2:13; 10:6). Syncretism had blurred distinctions between Asherah, Astarte, and Anat, while for Israelite writers such distinctions were not of interest. We hear of the cult of Baal in a number of local manifestations: Baal of the Covenant at Shechem (Judg. 9:4); Baal of Peor at Shittim (Num. 25:3); Baal ‘Zebub’ (‘of the flies’; but should Zebul, ‘Prince,’ be read?) of Philistia (2 Kings 1:2-3); and perhaps Baal of Hamon (Song of Sol. 8:11). Jezebel introduced to Samaria the worship of Tyre’s god Baal (1 Kings 18:19). It is not altogether clear whether these local baals were taken to manifest the single great god Baal or whether they were imagined as discrete deities.

  Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

There have been people who promulgated the theory that Baal and YHWH were the male and female essences of the same pre-caananite god, but this is by no means a universal interpretation.

  The relationship between El and Baal in Canaanite mythology has been a matter of dispute. There is some indirect evidence of antagonism between these important gods, inasmuch as they were competitors for the highest position in the pantheon. Yet there is also evidence of concord between them. Philo of Byblos reported an accommodation whereby Baal ruled on earth with the permission of El; many have seen in this arrangement the pattern of relations between the two most important gods of the Canaanites.

  Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Interestingly, by the time of Jesus, Baal had morphed into "Beelzebub", a name commonly associated with the devil.

  In the Ugaritic epic material, Baal is pictured as descending into the netherworld, the domain of the god Mot. That descent was evidently part of a cycle intended to coincide with the cycle of seasons. In order to bring Baal up from the realm of Mot and thus ensure initiation of the fertile rainy season, the Canaanites engaged in orgiastic worship that included human sacrifice as well as sexual rites (Jer 7:31; 19:4–6). Sacred prostitutes evidently participated in the autumnal religious ritual. The worship of Baal was strongly condemned in the OT (Jgs 2:12–14; 3:7–8; Jer 19).
  See also Canaanite Deities and Religion.

  By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (KJV Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27).

  Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (135). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.


Could Luke 3 be Joseph's genealogy? I am considering the possibility that Luke 3 is in fact the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary. Here is why...

Luke mentions the circumcision and the naming of both Jesus and John on the 8th day in Luke 1:59 and Luke 2:21, which would have us think that there is a strong tradition when it comes to naming children and that it is going to be named after names already in the family.
(Luke 1:59-61) "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.  {60} And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.  {61} And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name."
We know that some of the children of Joseph and Mary were these, (Matthew 13:55) "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Now let's look at the names in the genealogy in Luke 3.
(Luke 3:23-31) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, {24} Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, {25} Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, {26} Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, {27} Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, {28} Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, {29} Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, {30} Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, {31} Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"

Now in this genealogy we have Joseph named multiple times and Jose, Simeon and Juda which are all names of Jesus's brothers. When we compare this to the Genealogy in Matt which shares no names with Jesus relatives, it is clear to me that Luke 3 is more likely the genealogy of Joseph. It also mentions in Luke 3 that Jesus was as supposed the son of Joseph, but then goes on to say Joseph was the son of Heli, which appears that the genealogy is about Joseph.

It seems that Luke gives Joseph's geneology (Luke 3:23-38):

  And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

Of course the parenthetical "Jesus .... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (3:23) means that while Christ was reckoned the son of Joseph by all, he of course contributed nothing to the conception of Christ, but was a foster father, Mary having conceived miraculously without Joseph's participation: "he knew her not before her bringing forth a son" (Matthew 1:25); "How shall this [conception of Jesus] be, seeing as I do not know  man?" (Luke 1:34).

He perhaps ends his genealogy with "God" as the final 'patriarch' in answer to the fact that Joseph was not the true father, but God. It seems to be a frank but subtle recognition that this genealogy of course does not to prove Christ's ancestor via any royal line, but still serves the purpose of conveying the truth that Jesus is in a sense not of this world, but the Son of God.

That he brings Christ's genealogy back as far as Adam is also to show that Christ is the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45 etc.), theology Luke perhaps learned from one of its major, or perhaps first, proponents, Paul, of whom he was the amanuensis, or secretary. So thought apostolic fathers like Irenaeus.1

Whereas it seems that Matthew gives Mary's genealogy because of the indispensable requirement for the Messiah to be a son of David (Mary being a daughter of David).

  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. 6 And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. 12 And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13 And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14 And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15 And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations.

It seems that Mary is lumped in her along with the other descendants of David, namely Joseph, because it's already obvious and implicit that: a) among the Jewish people, it was known that the Messiah must be a real descendant of David, and so the mother is obviously a descendant of David if the father's David ancestry is irrelevant, as in this case b) it is immediately related after this that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. That is, both Mary and Joseph are descended from David (Luke 1:32; 2:3-5).

This is important because Matthew's Gospel is universally recognized as a very Semitic Gospel, whose intended audience are Jews, who are looking for all the key requirements of the Davidic Messiah to be met in the Christ (note also the arbitrary selection of Abraham, the father of the Jews, as a major patriarch, as opposed to anyone else).  The importance of the Davidic ancestry of the Messiah is perhaps why Matthew begins his Gospel with Jesus' genealogy; a non-descendant of David was not a candidate for the Messiah.

Thus, He gives a Davidic lineage via Mary, his mother: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David [i.e. Mary], according to the flesh" (Romans 1:1-3); "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Also significant perhaps is involving the mother at all in an important genealogy such as this, since the Davidic Kingdom consisted of the King, but also a significant figure, being the mother of the King, who served as Queen or Lady of that Kingdom (cf. Jeremiah 13:18; 1 Kings 2:19; 2 Kings 24:12; etc.). This was doubtless, then, another expectation of the Jewish people concerning the Messiah: 'who would the blessed mother of our Messiah be?' Note therefore the fulfillment of this expectation in the words of Elizabeth, speaking of the mother of the Messiah: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why was it granted to me that the mother of my lord [i.e. the Messiah] should come to me?" (Luke 1:43; cf. Psalm 110).

Worthy of consideration is the fact that the Hebrew letters דוד ("David") have the sum numeral value of 14 (ד being 4, ו being 6), which may explain the division into fourteens here as significant of 'perfect Davidicness.' It may be, too, that the apparent redundancy or irrelevance of Joseph's genealogy (Jesus not being descended from him) can be explained as showing simply that Joseph is a fulfillment in the delineated recapitulations of generations in fourteens.

Footnotes

1 "Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul 'the figure of Him that was to come,'" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 22, 3. Circa A.D. 180.


Are the word of faith/prosperity doctrines biblical? From my understanding and study, here are some of their main teachings:

God wants us to be prosperous in this life (health, wealth, relationships etc)
If we don't receive we don't have enough faith (faith is a like a force)
we are little gods; we have creative power to speak things into reality (i.e think positively and that thing will come to pass - often related to success) (name it, claim it)
Jesus was tortured in hell/hades by demons, for 3 days to atone for our sin (the cross wasn't the end of his suffering.
There are some other niches of teaching within these doctrines I simply can't remember currently (these are the main ones above)

From listening to some of these preachers they do use verses to back up their claims; are these actually what the bible says, or are they being twisted?

I do have my own thoughts about the truth of these teachings, however I am not going to include them, as I still want to neutrally approach the topic/question.

For every passage that justifies a religious focus on the accumulation of wealth, there is another that presents the opposite, or example Mark 10:24-25 (copied in Matthew 19:23-24, Luke 18:24-25):

  Mark 10:24-25 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The Bible often associates prosperity with wickedness; for example Psalm 73:3-9:

  Psalm 73:3-9: For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.

An association of prosperity with wickedness may be unfair, but is also inconsistent with any claim that the Bible condemns as lacking faith, those who do not achieve prosperity.

I would more willingly accept the claims of prosperity theology if its advocates gave their own wealth to the poor, as Ananias was called upon to do in Acts 5.


Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister in Gen 12? It says that Abraham feared for his life (Gen 12:12). Does this mean Abraham didn't trust God in spite of the NT view that Abraham was a man of faith (Heb 11:8-12, Gal 3:9)?

Why is the repeated mistake with Abimilech then recorded in Gen 20?

Regardless of his faith, Abraham was still a man - he had not yet been perfected: he was still on his walk of progressive sanctification.

The same question could be asked as to why David sinned with Bathsheba, or why Samson fell for Delilah.

And any of countless more examples - the men and women portrayed in the Bible were not perfect (excepting Christ). Even Peter, who had been with Jesus since the earliest days of His ministry, denied him three times during the trial before the Sanhedrin.

Every instance is an opportunity to showcase God's faithfulness, mercy, and grace - even when his chosen ones fail Him.

Even those with the stoutest faith in God can forget or become fearful: while backsliding or temporarily turning from God to our own wisdom is never promoted, it is the entire life story that must be examined. When doing that with Abraham, it is obvious that though he was not perfect, he was following God.