What is a faithful translation for "the son of perdition" in John 17:12? In John 17, Jesus prays and says of his disciples,

  12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

That was the New American Standard Bible. The phrase there is a literal translation from the Greek, "ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας"; "the son of X" is an idiom for "one who personifies the nature of X", and "ἀπωλείας" (Strong 684) can mean "perdition", "loss", "destruction", "ruin", and so on.

Translations differ in how they render this reference to Judas (though they often have a footnote saying that "son of perdition" is the word-for-word equivalent). Examples:

the son of perdition: King James and many of its derivatives; also Douay-Rheims, from the Vulgate's filius perditionis
the son of destruction: English Standard Version, World English Bible, New American Bible
the one doomed to destruction: New International Version
the one destined to be lost: New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible
the man who was bound to be lost: Good News Bible
the one who chose to be lost: Jerusalem Bible
the one who was already lost: Christian Community Bible

It seems to me that there are differences in how much agency is assigned to Judas here. If he is "doomed to destruction" or "destined to be lost" then he is being painted as a victim of fate. If he is "the one who chose to be lost" or "the son of perdition/destruction", then he could be a more active participant in his own downfall. The "son of perdition/destruction" seems like an obvious translation, but it's not clear to me whether (in Greek or English) it should connote that he is a destroyer, or the one who is destroyed, or both.

Do these English translations faithfully express the meaning of "son of perdition" in Greek? Related to that, is there any real doctrinal difference between the phrases above?

Interesting question!

The Greek words used here are huois tes apoleias
"houis"
The Strongs number for this is G5207.  Looking at the Vines entry, this definitely means "son".  This can mean both "male offspring" or, more generically, "descendant".
"tes"
Strong G3588.  This word means "of the".  It's just a very simple word.
"apoleias"
Strong G684.  This means "destruction", "perishing" or "ruin".
Translation
The literal translation of this phrase would be "son of destruction" or "son of ruin".  The choice of using the word "perdition" is acceptable in the old form of the word ("utter destruction"), however it has taken on the connotation of "eternal damnation" and so it's no longer an appropriate translation, in my opinion.
In Context
If we look at what Jesus is saying here, he's saying that he saved and protected all of his disciples except for Judas.  He refers to Judas as the "son of perdition" saying that he was the only one who he did not protect.
If we look at this in light of Luke, we find this verse:

Luke 22:3 (NIV)
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Here, we see that Satan entered Judas.  After that point (in John 17), Jesus calls Judas the "son of destruction".  What he's referring to here is clearly that Judas was of Satan and not of God.
Was Judas innocent?
The problem with looking at things too closely is that we often lose sight of the bigger picture.  The question being asked was, essentially, was Judas a product of circunstances or did he play an active role in betraying Jesus.  If we read further in Luke we see this passage:

Luke 22:4-6 (NIV) Emphasis added
4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Clearly, there was plotting involved, a conscious effort to betray Jesus, and a choice that Judas made.  While, yes, he was a "son of destruction" this was due to his actions and his choices.
Jesus was protecting the twelve apostles, except for Judas.  But what was he protecting them from?  He was protecting them from Satan!  Once he stopped protecting Judas, the temptations and desires of Satan entered into him and he was overtaken by the overwhelming temptations, to which he succumbed.
Jesus allowed Judas to be tempted--he withdrew his protection from Judas so that Satan could enter into his heart--and Judas chose to turn away from God and from Jesus.
Summary
Jesus was protecting the apostles from being tempted by Satan.  With Judas, he withdrew that protection so that Satan could enter into his heart and tempt him.  With that temptation, Judas was allowed to choose to betray Jesus--which he did.
Judas intentionally plotted against Jesus and consented to the betrayal.  Therefore was fully guilty of the betrayal.


What is an overview of the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1? In the Creation account in Genesis 1 (and 2), God's work of Creation is famously split into 7 "days". For example, the first "day" occurs in verse 5:

  Genesis 1:5 (NLT)
  God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."

  And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

I have seen claims that "day" refers to a literal 24-hour period, which is supported by the fact that the same Hebrew word is used for both occurrences of "day" in that verse. I have also seen claims that "day" just refers to some long period of time, which is in agreement with scientific evidence. Hence, my question is:

Considering context and wording, what are the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1?

There are three primary views that explain the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. I will describe each one, and some of the purported Biblical evidence supporting each, briefly here. After all, this is a topic on which many books have been written.

24-hour Day Theory

This view, which is held by many Young Earth Creationists states that each of the 6 days were 24-hours long. Although they admit that the Sun was not created until the third day, this does not mean that the first two days could not have been 24-hours long, just the same.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this theory includes:

Genesis 1 mentions the passing of "morning" and "evening", this suggests literal days
A study of other Biblical texts which use the phrase "evening and morning" (38 not counting Genesis 1) all refer to 24-hour days
The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1, whenever attached to a number elsewhere in scripture, it refers to a 24-hour day

See the book Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross by Mark A Van Beber and Paul S. Taylor for more discussion on this, and relevant topics. Note: not to be confused with the book Creation and Time by Hugh Ross, to which the aforementioned book is a rebuttal.
1000-year Day Theory

Another view held by many Young Earth Creationists, it is essentially the same as the 24-hour Day Theory, with the exception that it acknowledges that God's perspective of time is different than the human perspective of time, in light of 2 Peter 3:8:

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Therefore, the Genesis 1 days may refer to 1000-year time periods, rather than 24-hour time periods.
Day-Age Theory

This view, a subset of Old Earth Creationism, is the view that the word "day" in Genesis 1 is metaphorical, and represents an arbitrary amount of time. Consistency with scientific evidence is frequently cited, but also often criticized by Young Earth Creationsts as taking too liberal a view of scripture.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this view includes:

The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) [i.e. "In my grandfather's day" or "in the day of the dinosaurs]
In rebuttal to point #2 above, the argument is made that none of these 38 mentions of "evening and morning" use the same Hebrew word for day (Yom), so drawing parallels is inappropriate
In rebuttal to point #3 above, the argument is made that when used elsewhere in the singular (as it is in Genesis 1) the Hebrew word (Yom) is always in reference to human activity, therefore drawing parallels to this usage in Genesis 1 in this case is also inappropriate
The fact that the seventh day never ended suggests that we are still living in the seventh day, which would clearly indicate that the seventh "day" is many years long.
The Genesis 2 re-account of creation has Adam naming "all the wild animals and all the birds" (Genesis 2:19-20 NIV) between his own creation and before Eve was created, thus all on the 6th day. This would be impossible in a 24-hour period (Young Earth creationists often argue that God may have given Adam supernatural speed or abilities, or that prior to the fall man naturally had greater abilities that might allow this task to be completed in one day.)

See the book A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross for additional discussion of these topics.


Was Adam anatomically God's image, as Michelangelo's painting seems to indicate? Under the patronage of Pope Julius circa 1512, Michelangelo painted The Creation of Adam, seen below, in the Sistine Chapel. The painting shows both God and Adam as adult men with navels, and the complementary poses of the two figures allude to the verse, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Gen 1:27)

Does the Catholic Church endorse this painting as an accurate representation of Adam's creation? How is the presence of navels consistent with neither Adam nor God being born of a woman? Was Adam created in the anatomical image of God?

The Catholic Church (my own Tradition) believes that being made in God's image does not have such a physical reality. This 'image' is more a reflection of His own Nature. The closest physical way we 'image' God is that humans are both Male and Female who come together to generate a Third person. This "The Two Become One" is reflecting the Trinitarian Nature of God; where the Holy Spirit proceeds "From the Father and the Son".

God also has no real gender in the same sense that humans have gender. Human gender is a creation of God; which fits into His design of creation. God does ask us to call him Father, and yes, the second person of the Trinity did appear on earth in a Male body; but human Fatherhood and human Sonship are only shadows of God's Perfect Fatherhood and Perfect Sonship. God, aside from the incarnation, as no physical body composed of matter.

One thing I have realized about the various paintings in Catholic Churches is that angels and even God himself (the Father) are depicted as human. This isn't because they 'look' like that; rather the artist is expressing the idea that "These are Persons". Angels are persons: They are pure intellect (and no physical body), and with intelligence comes personality. How much more so for God?

There are more ways that humans 'image God', but I only gave you the ways concerning physical appearance since that is what you are concerned with. I hope this helps.


How do Trinitarians deal with imbalances in their relationship with each Person of the Trinity? This is a practical question. According to Trinitarianism, three distinct Persons form the Godhead: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In principle, they are all just one God, but in practice people might tend to focus / fixate more on one specific Person over the other two.
For example, someone might focus excessively on Jesus, talk all the time about Jesus, but then forget about the Father and the Holy Spirit. Alternatively, another person might develop a very strong and intimate bond toward the Person of the Father by following very strictly the pattern of prayer that Jesus taught: "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come [...]", whereas Jesus is relegated to a secondary plane, only being remembered on Sunday services or transactionally at the end of prayers ("in Jesus' name, Amen"). And likewise, there might be Christians who over fixate on the Person of the Holy Spirit, perhaps those who lean more towards the Charismatic/Pentecostal side of the spectrum, thus relegating the Father and the Son to the background in terms of importance.
Question: How do Trinitarians deal with the issue of over-fixating on one particular Person of the Trinity while relegating the other two to the background? Are there recommended practices within Trinitarian denominations for developing a balanced and equally intimate relationship with each Person of the Trinity, so that no Person is treated "unfairly"?

I think what is at play here is a matter or your perception. Or to put another way, "things don't always appear as they seem."
Yes, God is three persons and yet there are so many scriptures that only use Lord, God and many other titles referring to God.
Where no distinction is made, it is obviously unnecessary to make a distinction. The persons of the Trinity are persons in RELATION to each other, any one of the persons in relation to us is simply God, in that there is only one God.
So, the Holy Spirit is a person in relation to the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is God in relation to us. If you are in a relationship with the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, then you must be in a relationship with them all; for there is only one God. If you deny one, you deny them all.
Jesus said at John 5:23, "in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (Notice Jesus was sent, not created).
What about the Holy Spirit? Is He treated unfairly? I think not. Matthew 12:31, "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."
There is a contrast in this passage between all other sins (even sins against the Son of Man, verse 32) and the sin against the Holy Spirit. The sin against the Holy Spirit is not merely a particular act; rather, to blaspheme the Spirit reflects an attitude that is decidedly against God and His nature. Just read verses 34-35. The Pharisees had this attitude by virtue of them accusing Jesus of joining forces with the devil.
In short, the reason the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven is because the Pharisees persisted in saying, "He has an unclean spirit." The Pharisees who called the Holy Spirit in Jesus an unclean spirit were rejecting the Spirit's witness to Jesus as Messiah and Savior.


Why do Evangelical Protestants reject the Catholic approach to venerating Mary? When Elizabeth greeted Mary -

  42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..."  - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE)

Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?

Born-again protestant Christians are not "against" Mary of Nazareth. Every one of them accepts Mary as the Mother of Jesus, and while few would use the phrase, they have no issue with the concept of Mary as the Mother of God.

That said, all but a few protestants, including nearly all who would self-identify as "born-again" reject most of the teachings about Mary that have been defined over the years, mostly by the Roman Catholic Church, as being at best, unnecessary for salvation, since for the most part, most Protestants agree that (as Article VI of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England states):

  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not  read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be though requisite or necessary to salvation.

For protestants, principle rules out such teachings of the Roman Catholic church as the immaculate conception, the assumption, the notion of Mary as the mediatrix of all graces, and most Marian apparitions. Further, some of the teachings about Mary that are firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, like the annunciation, are not widely observed by many protestants, because they are not perceived to be of as much value in protestant theology.


Are there philosophical explanations for why God would allow animals to suffer due to non-human causes? I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled Christianity's Biggest Problem, in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering:

An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs.
An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire.
Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics.
Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general.

Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

Are there philosophical explanations for why God would allow animals to suffer due to non-human causes?
St. Thomas Aquinas has something to say about it!
The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist. This is simply not so.
We know the sin entered the world through one man. Sin is felt throughout God’s Creation, and that includes the animal kingdom.
St. Paul tells us such in Romans 88 22-24.

22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.
23 And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?

Another biblical story comes to mind here: Gerasene demoniac:

Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac
5 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits[c] begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. - Mark 5:1-13

Why did Jesus allow the demons to enter the pigs? He could have sent them back to hell where they came from.

Animal rights
Classical theological commentary cited this story to argue that animals have no moral importance in Christianity. Saint Augustine of Hippo concluded from the story that Christians have no duties towards animals, writing:

Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition, for judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit.

Similarly, Thomas Aquinas argued that Jesus allowed the demons to destroy the pigs in order to make the point that his purpose was primarily for the good of men's souls, not their bodies or property (including their animals). This interpretation has been shared by a long line of commentators up to the present day, including I. Howard Marshall and Mark Driscoll. - Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac

Dr. B. Kyle Keltz in his book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering is a genuine eye-opener in this subject matter.

The problem of animal suffering has been championed by atheists at least as far back as the time of Charles Darwin, and it is increasingly touted today. For example, Richard Dawkins claims,

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As Dawkin’s quote suggests, The problem of animal suffering is the atheistic argument that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would not use millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death just to create a world for humans to live. Atheists making this argument emphasize the great amount of evidence for animal disease, death, and suffering in the natural history of the earth (and still to this day), and they conclude that the God of classical theism does not exist.
In my recently published book Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, I discuss a solution to this problem in light of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. In this post, I am going to summarize my argument in the book. I will first discuss the nature of animal pain and suffering. Then I will consider non-human animal minds and the evidence that animals are not self-aware. Finally, I will emphasize Aquinas’ ideas on why God made a finite world governed by natural laws, making animal suffering possible. All of these related concepts will come together to form a comprehensive solution to the question of why an all-good God would allow animal suffering.
The Nature of Animal Pain
While pain and suffering seem to be terrible things, a closer examination shows that they are actually good for non-human animals. Aquinas, following Augustine, believed that evil is not a substantial thing; evil is a privation of the good. Evil is not a thing in animals and objects, but it is the absence of a good thing in animals and objects. Moreover, evil is not just the privation or absence of any good; it is the absence of a good that ought to be in an animal or object. So for example, it would be an evil for a dog to be blind, but it would not be an evil for a tree to be blind. The ability to see ought to be in a dog according to its canine nature, while the ability to see is not something that is naturally in trees.
When thinking about the nature of pain, the existence of pain in non-human animals cannot be something that is evil, according to the Thomistic view. This is because pain is an existing, physiological process in non-human animals. Pain is not the privation of a good, although it is caused by a privation of the good (e.g., a scrape or cut on the arm).
But doesn’t this implication cause problems for Aquinas’ evil-as-privation view? Most people, even most philosophers, seem to think that pain is intrinsically bad. It seems a good God wouldn’t allow His creatures to feel pain because it is so unpleasant. While this view of pain seems intuitive, it actually ignores the purpose and benefits of pain.
To no one’s surprise, the findings of contemporary science suggest that pain is crucial for the survival of humans and non-human animals. For example, clinical cases involving children born with a nervous system defect, making them feel virtually no pain, show that these children do not live very long. Their insensitivity to pain makes them suffer repeated injuries to the same areas due to fractures while moving around, joint injuries because of poor posture, and tongue injuries while eating. Even sitting for prolonged periods can cause injuries if someone does not shift in their chair.
Yet what is surprising and not immediately intuitive about pain is that its unpleasantness is necessary to protect animals. Philosophers such as David Hume have argued that the unpleasantness of pain doesn’t seem to be essential. But pain research involving Hansen’s disease (leprosy) patients has shown that the unpleasantness of pain is necessary to protect wounds. Doctors in these cases tried to help patients who couldn’t feel pain in their hands and feet by strapping a light or buzzer that would alarm the patients to stress or impacts that could cause injury. It was found that the patients almost always ignored the lights and sounds, leading to repeated and sustained injuries, and it wasn’t until the doctors integrated electrical shocks in the warning devices that improvements were made. But even with the electrical shocks, the patients usually would override the system, perform their desired task, and then reengage the system. One doctor concluded that without an internal signal of unpleasant pain, the patients were “task-oriented” instead of being “self-oriented.”
Of course, humans have free will and can decide to ignore warnings, but it isn’t hard to apply the same concept to non-human animals. Animals might not survive as long as they normally do in the wild as they might not be as repelled from harm without the unpleasant effects of pain. Even chronic pain has been found to improve the survivability of non-human animals.6
So, regarding the nature of pain, the philosophy and the scientific evidence seem to coincide. Pain is actually not intrinsically bad, as it is necessary to keep non-human animals healthy and alive. Without pain, and its unpleasant commands to avoid further injury, non-human animals would lot live long at all in this world governed by physical laws; pain is good in that it ought to be in non-human animals.
Non-Human Animal Minds
Since the existence of non-human animal pain is actually a good thing, it seems there should be no problem of animal suffering. However, it is still argued that non-human animal pain and suffering are bad because of their unpleasantness. If God is all-powerful, then why can’t God just make a world where animals don’t feel pain? The necessary aspect of pain doesn’t take away the fact that there are countless animals who are experiencing pain and suffering even today.
At this point, it is good to consider the nature of the animal mind. This topic constitutes the largest chapter in my book, and the details are many.7 But long story short, contemporary research in non-human animal cognition suggests that there are no non-human animals who are self-aware.
Regarding contemporary research, scientists have studied several possible indicators of self-awareness in non-human animals including metacognition, episodic memory, and the ability to perform abstract reasoning. Metacognition is the ability to think about one’s own thoughts; episodic memory is the ability to remember past events or imagine future events from a subjective, personal perspective; and abstract reasoning is distinct from instinctual, associative reasoning, which doesn’t involve the knowledge of abstract, universal, and immaterial concepts.
While some non-human animals show promise and possibly perform actions explained by metacognition (e.g., capuchin monkeys8), episodic memory (e.g., scrub jays9), and abstract reasoning (e.g., great apes10), ultimately, there is no evidence that suggests these actions are solely explainable through self-awareness. In each case, it is possible (and likely) that these non-human animal actions are explainable through lower-order processes. Actions suggesting metacognition are thought to be explainable through associate, non-rational learning in which non-human animals simply associate rewards and punishments based on memories instead of reflecting internally. Likewise, actions suggesting episodic memory in non-human animals are thought to be explainable through associate learning based on semantic (non-personal) memories instead of episodic (personal) memories. While studies into the possibility of self-awareness in non-human animals have shown that some animals come close (e.g., higher apes, elephants, dolphins), the majority of non-human animals are not even considered to possess self-awareness. Accordingly, while a few researchers have suggested it is possible some non-human animals are self-aware, the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that non-human animals are not self-aware.
All of this scientific evidence supports the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic view that humans are unique on the earth in that only humans are capable of abstract rationality because only humans have rational souls that are capable of abstracting immaterial forms from material objects. Aquinas believed that in the process of knowing (when the mind abstracts a form from matter), a human is able to judge that he or she exists as a knowing being. In other words, the action of knowing makes it possible for a being to know that he or she knows. And in knowing that one knows, a diachronic sense of self develops over time as the knower judges that he or she has existed throughout the entire process.
Moreover, the rational soul is thought to be the principle making it possible for humans to have free will. According to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, only something immaterial can take in the form of something else without substantially changing into the new form taken. Thus, there must be something immaterial about humans because in the process of knowing, they abstract and store the forms of the things they know. This means that the rational powers (intellects and wills) of humans are immaterial and are not affected by the physical laws of nature. So, while human choices are affected by biological, psychological, sociological, and other factors, ultimately human choices are not completely determined.
What all this means for the problem of animal suffering is that non-human animal suffering is not morally significant. It is not wrong for God to allow animal suffering because there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is experiencing suffering. This might sound strange, and to be clear, I am not denying that non-human animals suffer. I am only denying that non-human animals experience suffering as persons (i.e., self-aware beings with a will and intellect). In other words, there is no non-human animal who knows it is feeling pain (metacognition), remembers or thinks about itself as having personally experienced pain (episodic memory), or has concluded rationally that pain is bad and should be avoided (abstract reasoning). While non-human animals are conscious of pain and suffering, they are not aware of their pain and suffering, and it is not wrong for God to allow this suffering because as I noted earlier, there is no person in the non-human animal kingdom who is suffering and/or willing to not suffer.
Why God Created a Finite World with Animal Pain
A question might still remain: Why would God create a world in which pain is necessary in the first place? This is a question that is answered mainly through the thought of Aquinas. Following thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas argued that the only reason God would want to create is to communicate or spread His goodness.
Basically, Aquinas argues that since God is completely perfect, there is nothing God could ever want or need. Yet since God is infinitely loving, and love is not something that people want to keep to themselves, it follows that God would be inclined to create a world so He could share His goodness and love. Thus, God’s purpose for creating is to communicate His goodness to rational beings who are able to know His goodness and share His love.
But there is a metaphysical reality that God must work around. The problem is that God is infinite, self-sustaining, and immaterial, but anything He can create will be finite and contingent. So, since God can’t make something infinitely perfect (because this would be to create Himself, which is impossible) to communicate His goodness, He is left with creating a finite, contingent world containing immaterial and physical beings and things.
Aquinas thought that God must create a hierarchy of beings that points metaphysically upwards to God, and God must order the universe with physical and moral laws. For example, in creating an abundance of elements in a vast universe, God is showing numerous beautiful ways in which things can exist and displaying His power to create such a universe. In creating a hierarchy of living beings, including vegetative (plants), sensitive (non-human animals), and rational (humans) beings, God is demonstrating that created beings can possess various levels of perfection, pointing metaphysically upwards to God’s infinite perfection. Any finite world God will create must be governed by a physical law because without physical laws, His hierarchy of beings would cease to exist. Physical laws order the universe to God’s purpose of communicating His goodness. Likewise, God must promulgate a moral law to humans because they cannot be ordered to His goodness solely through physical laws because of their rational souls, which include the ability to make freely willed decisions.
Basically, because of the metaphysical reality of God’s infinite, self-sustaining perfection and the contingent, limited nature of anything He will create, any world God will create will be finite and will have a limited amount of resources; any world He will create will be governed by physical laws and include a hierarchy of beings including vegetative, sensitive, and rational beings. This means that any world God could create will be a world that will include animals who will require the ability to feel pain in order to survive.
Conclusion
One of the most interesting things to me in performing this study on the problem of animal suffering was how much the medieval philosophy of Thomas Aquinas lines up with findings from contemporary science. There technically is no problem of animal suffering because animal pain and suffering is not intrinsically bad, but necessary for non-human animal flourishing. Moreover, non-human animal suffering is not something morally significant for God to allow because there are no persons in the non-human animal kingdom. Even if an animal were found to be rational, this would mean such an animal would technically be a human (i.e., a rational animal) and should not be considered a part of the problem of animal suffering, which solely considers non-human animals. While atheists often argue that the world we see looks like the product of natural, blind processes, only classical Christian theism predicts that any world that exists will be a world governed by both physical and moral laws and will include rational beings capable of knowing and loving.
While many aspects of the problem of animal suffering seem intuitive and sound at first, upon further investigation, the problem falls apart. Pain feels bad, but it is not intrinsically bad because it needs to be unpleasant for animals to survive. It is bad for humans to experience pain because this is against their will, but non-human animals cannot will to be free from pain nor are they able to be aware of their pain. The only thing that is infinitely perfect is God, so any world He will create to communicate His goodness will be finite and will entail the possibility of non-human animal pain and suffering. - Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering

Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering
How many times have I heard Pope John Paul II state that we should not live as though God does not exist! Christians find it sinful to kill animals simply for the sake of killing morally wrong. Believers and atheists still enjoy their steak dinners, but to kill without reason is immoral. The question of abortion is not brought into the equation here, but I wonder how atheists view this in their viewpoint of killing the innocent living person in the womb, Alex O'Connor does not mention in his YouTube video: Christianity's Biggest Problem!


In John 1:45–51, did Jesus prophesy that Nathanael was one of the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7 and 14? When Jesus tells Nathanael he will see the heavens opened and angels descending on the Son of man is He referring to simply a declaration of His deity, His baptism and other events where God confirmed His blessing of His Son by spiritual and physical realms colliding, the transfiguration, His temptation, or is this a prophecy that Nathanael would be one of the 144,000 Jews spoken of in Revelation 7 and 14?

I'm interested in Protestant and Catholic views.

There is some variety in what Christians have taught concerning this verse, but most seem to focus on it represent one or more of the following

An allusion to Jacob's dream of a ladder (Genesis 28:10-22). These typically present Christ as the fulfillment of that dream.
A specific prediction of an event in Christ's life that Nathanael would witness, especially

Christ's Baptism
Christ's Transfiguration
Christ's Ascension

A prediction of the Second Coming
A general claim to divinity

There are some who mention Nathanael and that Christ has confirmed his confession "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!", but that they usually move quickly on to interpreting Christ's words. I haven't found any that explicitly mention Nathanael's ultimate fate. Those that mention Nathanael tend to focus more on the miracles and wonders that Nathanael will witness.

Here are some of the highlights.

John Chrysostom

John was Patriarch of Constantinople around AD 400. He is well respected by most Christian traditions, but is particularly beloved by the Orthodox. In his 21st Homily on the Gospel of John, he focuses on how the angels serve Christ throughout His sojourn of Earth and that this is proof of Christ's Divine Sonship.

  Persuading him by these words to own Him Lord also of the Angels. For on Him as on the King's own Son, the royal ministers ascended and descended, once at the season of the Crucifixion, again at the time of the Resurrection and the Ascension, and before this also, when they came and ministered unto Him, when they proclaimed the glad tidings of His birth, and cried, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace', when they came to Mary, when they came to Joseph. ...  For of His sayings some had been proved, such as, Before Philip called you, under the fig-tree I saw you; others had yet to come to pass, and had partly done so, namely, the descending and ascending of the Angels, at the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension; and this He renders credible by His words even before the event.

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine was Bishop of Hippo around AD 400. He is among the most influential theologians in Christian history. In his 7th Tractate on John, Augustine refers back to Jacob and asserts that the dream pointed to Christ:

  Jacob saw a ladder in a dream; and on a ladder he saw angels ascending and descending: and he anointed the stone which he had placed at his head. You have heard that the Messiah is Christ; you have heard that Christ is the Anointed. For Jacob did not place the stone, the anointed stone, that he might come and adore it: otherwise that would have been idolatry, not a pointing out of Christ.

He goes on to interpret the angels on the ladder as the Christian preachers. Nathanael probably did not understand it this way, but it is worth mentioning.

  But what saw he then on the ladder? Ascending and descending angels. So it is the Church, brethren: the angels of God are good preachers, preaching Christ; this is the meaning of, they ascend and descend upon the Son of man.

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril was Patriarch of Alexandria in the 400s. He was central to the defense of the Two Natures of Christ against Nestorius. His exposition may come the closest to commenting on Nathanael's salvation, but he seems to focus more on the evidence that will confirm Nathanael's confession rather than his final state.

  Thou shalt be firmer unto faith, saith He, when thou seest greater things than these. For he that believed one sign, how shall he not by means of many be altogether bettered, especially since they shall be more wonderful than those now wondered at? ... Common now to all is the word which seals the faith of Nathanael. But in saying that angels shall be seen speeding up and down upon the Son of Man, that is, ministering and serving His commands, for the salvation of such as shall believe, He says that then especially shall He be revealed as being by Nature Son of God. For it is not one another that the rational powers serve but surely God.

His commentary then moves on to a discussion of Christ's miracles and ties these back to the wonders that Nathanael will see.

Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas was a Catholic priest and monk in the 1200s. He is considered a Doctor of the Church by the Catholic Church. Aquinas uses the passage to illustrate Christ's power and His two natures:

  Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what he foretells about the future, saying, you will see. For one who has revealed the truth about things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is true. He says, the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, because, in his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as was said.

He goes on to agree with Augustine that the statement refers back to Jacob and a prefiguring of Christ:

  According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with "the angels of God ascending and descending on it". Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and said, "Truly, the Lord is in this place". Now that stone is Christ, whom the builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened, and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him

John Calvin

Calvin was one of the principle theologians of the Reformation. He takes the position that we should not spend too much time wondering about Nathanael but should instead learn what we can about the Kingdom of God:

  They are greatly mistaken, in my opinion, who anxiously inquire into the place where, and the time when, Nathanael and others saw heaven opened; for he rather points out something perpetual which was always to exist in his kingdom. I acknowledge indeed, that the disciples sometimes saw angels, who are not seen in the present day; and I acknowledge also that the manifestation of the heavenly glory, when Christ ascended to heaven, was different from what we now behold. But if we duly consider what took place at that time, it is of perpetual duration; for the kingdom of God

To that end, Calvin understands the statement to refer to Jacob's dream being fulfilled in Christ, the only Mediator between heaven and earth.

  They are said to ascend and descend, so as to be ministers of God's kindness towards us; and therefore this mode of expression points out the mutual intercourse which exists between God and men. Now we must acknowledge that this benefit was received through Christ, because without him the angels have rather a deadly enmity against us than a friendly care to help us. They are said to ascend and descend on the son of man, not because they minister to him, but because -- in reference to him, and for his honor -- they include the whole body of the Church in their kindly regard. Nor have I any doubt that he alludes to the ladder which was exhibited to the patriarch Jacob in a dream, for what was prefigured by that vision is actually fulfilled in Christ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I don't think we can completely rule out the idea Christ was confirming Nathanael's salvation, but it seems that Christian teachers have not dwelt on this. Instead the focus, in one way or another, on Christ.


Do Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize marriage out of their religion? I am dating a Jehovah Witness male who is a marvelous man.  He is divorced from his wife after 22 years of sub standard wife treatment.  I am born and raised Christian and we have open dialog over our religious beliefs.  Does the Jehovah Witness religion recognize marriage out of their religion?

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses recognise marriage between Witnesses and non-Witnesses.  However, for a divorced Jehovah’s Witness man to remarry he must have divorced his wife on the grounds of her adultery.  He may have a legal document granting him a divorce, but the Bible says the only basis for divorce is adultery.  Here are a couple of quotes from the official Jehovah’s Witness web site:

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pages 639-643 – Divorce: What is the only Scriptural basis for divorce among Christians? Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:8, 9) Today, generally, distinction is made between “fornicators” and “adulterers.” According to modern usage, those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Adulterers are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate. As shown in the article FORNICATION, however, the term “fornication” is a rendering of the Greek word por·neiʹa and includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. Hence, Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually severs the marriage bond is por·neiʹa on the part of one’s marriage mate. The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provision if that is his desire, and such a divorce would free him to marry an eligible Christian.—1Co 7:39.
Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion; it shows instead that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001202
Honor “What God Has Yoked Together” Watchtower (Study) 2018 - The Only Scriptural Grounds: On two occasions, Jesus indicated that the only grounds for a divorce that would free an innocent mate to remarry is por·neiʹa. What does that Greek term mean? Por·neiʹa applies to illicit sexual relations outside Scriptural marriage. It includes adultery, prostitution, and sex relations between unmarried individuals as well as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of the genitals of an individual to whom one is not married.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018683

I have no idea what you mean by saying this man is “divorced from his wife after 22 years of sub- standard wife treatment” and all I can suggest is that you get him to explain exactly what the grounds for the divorce were.


What is the significance of the burning bush? In Exodus 3, God reveals himself to Moses through the sign of a burning bush, which miraculously is not consumed by the flames. Here is Exodus 3:1-6 in the NRSV:

  Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; he led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up." When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." Then he said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Why does God choose to use the sign of the burning bush, as opposed to any other miracle?

It seems to me that there should be some reason why a blazing (but not consumed) bush in the middle of the wilderness is particularly appropriate for the message that God was delivering to Moses. I was also wondering whether there is a specifically Christian interpretation of this event, given the other parallels between the Exodus and the work of Jesus.

There is a concept found throughout the Old Testament that God is a consuming fire:

  Deuteronomy 4:24 (NIV)
  For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

The idea behind this consuming fire is that it is the fire of God's judgment.  Just before that verse in Deuteronomy, it says not to make idols (starting in verse 24) because the God is a consuming fire.  We can see pretty clearly that this fire is a picture of God's judgment and wrath.

By comparison, one thing that is striking about the image of the burning bush is that there is fire that does not consume.

This is showing us that the imagery of the burning bush is one of mercy.  The consuming fire engulfs the bush, but the bush is not consumed.  The judgment is brought, but mercy is shown.

Source

Another theory is that the burning bush indicates that Israel will not be consumed by the upcoming plagues in Egypt.  It was, the theory goes, a way to indicate to Moses that there will be fires and judgments but the nation will not be consumed.

Source

A final, simpler theory is simply that God used an item that was present at that time in that location (a bush in the desert) to indicate his glory.  The fire that burned was simply his glory illuminating the bush.  (Fire, at that time, was the only known source of light besides the sun.)

Source (same as previous)


Is it appropriate to capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus Christ? Somewhere along the line I picked up the habit of capitalizing He, His, Him, etc. when they are referring to Jesus Christ as a form of respect. Likewise I always capitalize Christ, which is the title of Jesus of Nazareth. My question is if this is an appropriate or common practice among Christians?

Conclusion:

It appears this isn't a formal requirement, but I am not the only one to do it. I intend to continue to do so for now.

As a Catholic, I capitalize everything remotely concerning Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit out of respect and will always continue to.

But, curiously enough, the official writings of my church do not, which leads me to believe that being scrupulous about it is not the end of the world.


Holy Spirit vs Own option When we are making decisions in church group, rather charismatic people will say things like

  I feel we should...

which they sometimes connect to be input of holy guidance like the holy spirit.

Because I'm not convinced most times that my thought is that of GOD's input, I'll say I think... instead because I consider it very dangerous how some people act as if God had to tell them what to do.

The move for an own option to become a godly input seems to be quite fluent with some people. But just because we have the Holy Spirit living in us, does not mean most of our options are direct input by god, does it?

I mention this, because they will see themselves to be guided by God in the simplest of things like how do move banks in the church....

Would God not leave such duties to ourselves?

Edit:

How can we determine the difference between the leading of the Holy spirit and our own opinions?

God does speak

This is a very interesting question.  Certainly God has spoken to people in the past in very specific ways.  To mention a few...

God told Moses to stretch out his staff over the Red Sea, and it parted.
God told Moses to strike the rock, and water poured out
God told the Israelites to go out to find the manna, and it was there (every day for 40 years)
God told Joshua to march around Jericho once a day for 6 days and then 7 times on the 7th day, and the walls fell.
God told Joseph to flee with Mary and Jesus, and he did and spared his family.

The Source of Subtle Feelings

However, these were never a subtle feeling, but a very direct command of God.  That's a very important distinction.  A subtle feeling is often attributed to divine guidance when it could be just what someone happens to want.  Perhaps some people want to feel like they are in such close communion with God that He is directing every aspect of their lives.  However, I do believe this could be true for some people.

Unfortunately, the only way to discern whether or not what someone claims is divine guidance is actually from God is to wait for the outcome.  If the waters part, the manna falls from heaven, water comes forth from the rock, walls fall, or peril is escaped, then it's probably from God.  However, sometimes there is no visible distinction in the outcome.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.  Perhaps God really is active in the situation.

However, never in Scripture does God command someone to do something that ultimately results in failure.

Responsibility

Perhaps the issue comes down to where the subtle feelings are directed.  If someone has a feeling and decides to do things in their own life accordingly, then they are ultimately responsible for those decisions.  It seems, though, that some people can make very poor decisions, all the while proclaiming they are following God's guidance, when they are only doing what they want to do.  The problem with this is that the feeling cannot be questioned, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, unwise, or even ungodly it is.  When a situation turns out really poorly, people sometimes attribute it to God wanting them to go through that.  However, that ends up meaning that God directs people to make unwise decisions, so that it may be better to reject the guidance of God at times--for your own good.

However, if someone comes to you and tells you that they feel God is telling them that YOU should do something, that can be problematic.  If it is to stop sinning, then that's probably fine.  If it's to make a seemingly foolish decision, I would encourage the person to pray that God would direct them personally rather than relying on the uncertain feelings of another.

Conclusion

Each of us is ultimately responsible for his own decisions, so we have to make the wisest decisions we can and then own them.  God can certainly lead people to do things, and we should certainly be open to His leading.  Yet, we should not use "divine guidance" as an excuse to fulfill our own desires or wishes.  If we say God is leading us, then we should be very certain that it is God and not our own desires or even wisdom.


Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from? Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary's birth of Jesus was painless come from?

My wife just got home from a non-denominational study about Mary and she said she thought everybody knew this, but apparently no one knew about it - especially the Protestants!

In any event, what I'm looking for is the origin of the quote that Jesus' birth was "like light passing through glass" and whether that quote is wholly indicative of a painless birth or if it could have been painless in another way?

I understand that it's a little t tradition in the Church, not a dogma or anything.  But it's definitely a strong tradition; although it's one that could use a little preaching on from what I can tell.

The Catholic "tradition" is just that. It is not an official teaching or doctrine, but rather something one is free to believe. The Church does not take a physiological stance on whether or not Mary experienced pain during child birth. But to understand where this tradition came from, we have to go back to the Garden of Eden.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God said to Eve that because of her sin, women would now experience pain during child birth. The teaching of "Original Sin" is that we have all inherited the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was "the ark of the new covenant" and that God prepared her to be the perfect vessel which carried God (Jesus) into the world. That meant that she needed to be free from Original Sin and that she did not commit a sin.
So since she was free from sin, including the sin from Eve, the tradition is that she did not need to experience pain during child birth.
You can read more about the teaching on "the ark of the new covenant" here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant


Are there any traditions that believe in the complete cessation of miracles? As I have learned from this question of mine, the general consensus is that Cessationists do not believe in the cessation of all miracles. This lead me to wonder what to call the people that do believe in the complete cessation of all kinds of miracles or supernatural events.

Are there any significant traditions that believe that all miracle-working has stopped? If so, what are they? What would the general idea of total cessation be called?
(Note: I expect the answer to the second question to be a small set, if any, so I don't think it's a listy question.)

According to this message from the Church of Christ, miracles have ceased completely.
I don't know that this fits the bill of "major traditions".  From what I can see, it's not just a single independent non-denominational Church.  The website does list several of them.  I suppose it depends on where you draw the line at "significant".  Interestingly enough, a Google search for "all miracles have ceased" turns up a number of [insert city name] Church of Christ hits.

And they're not the only group.  I also found this sermon preaching the same message.  I can't make out any recognizable denomination here.  They simply seem to refer to themselves as "The Church".

Bible Truths.Net teaches the same thing.

Apparently there are those out there that believe in a complete cessation of miracles, which is really only one step away from the teaching outlined in my answer to your other question.

As I look further into this, it turns out that "Cessationist" is a term a bit like "Fundamentalist".  It means different things depending on who's supplying the definition.  Based on that, although on every site I've run across, "Cessationism" referes to the belief in the end, specifically, of the Charismatic gifts. (Speaking in tongues, faith healing, resurrection, prophecy, etc.), not all miracles.

As for the ones that believe in total cessation, I've been searching for a while, trying to find a proper term for the belief, and I can't find a single one.  They're not referred to as "cessationists" by anyone that's cite-worthy.  I've seen the term used in this context on two Tripod websites and a few blogs, but nothing  official that would stand up to the normal test for accepted external source references.

So back to an attempt at an answer, there do appear to be groups, and they may represent a "significant" portion of Christianity, that do believe in the complete cessation of miracles after the New Testament times.  But I'm no closer than you were in finding a proper name for them, or their belief, other than an unofficial "Total Cessationists" (which I just made up and doesn't count.).


From where did Mary get the attribution of "Full of Grace"? The Catholic prayer referred to as a "Hail Mary" ascribes the phrase "full of grace" to Mary.  The Scriptures describe both Jesus and Stephen as being "full of grace".  In Greek, this is "πλήρης χάριτος".

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his
  glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and
  truth.  John 1:14 ESV

  And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and
  signs among the people.  Acts 6:8 ESV

However, there doesn't seem to be any place where the Bible describes Mary in this way.  The only place that is close is in Luke 1:28 where the angel greets Mary and indicates that she has been given grace, often translated as "highly favored" (κεχαριτωμένη in Greek).

So, certainly Jesus was "full of grace" and Stephen was identified as being "full of grace".  Yet, why does Mary also receive this ascription?

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you," is an appropriate translation of the Greek at Luke 1:28, which reads

  και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν.

(Scrivener 1894 Greek NT)

The key phrase in that passage is "Chaîre, kecharitōménē, ho Kýrios metà soû." (NOTE: I am transliterating the Greek to its English equivalent.) Kecharitōménē is a hapax legomenon (literally a word or phrase that is "expressed once" in all known Greek literature).

Kecharitōménē is the verb χαριτόω (charitóō) rendered in the perfect participle passive. In researching the word, I learned that the perfect participle passive describes a state that exists at the time coincident with that of the leading verb as a result of action completed prior to the time of the main verb. See, http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson34.htm. Thus, one could translate "Chaîre, kecharitōménē, ho Kýrios metà soû" in English as "Rejoice, you who have been, and are, filled with grace, the Lord is with you." "Grace" here would refer to God's grace of salvation.

This word is important in understanding Catholic doctrine and dogma related to Mary. Reading this passage in the four senses of Scripture [literal, allegorical, moral (aka tropological), and anagogical] gives some good insights into the thinking leading to the Catholic Marian doctrines.


Should those who fall away and return to the church be baptized again? - Overview It is not uncommon for believers to be faithful for years, but "fall away", only to return years later with a reaffirmation of faith. Often this is common with teens who have a "wild" 20's and 30's, but return to the church in their middle age. But it is also plenty common outside of those specific ages.

Once returned to the fold, these new-old-believers often want and attain a second baptism, as a public show of their return to the faith.

Are there any Denominations which address a believer's second baptism? What is an overview of the beliefs on this common occurrence?

Note: This question is about adult believers who've been baptized, leave the faith, but return and desire a second baptism. This question is not about a believer's desire to be baptized despite having been by their parents as an infant.

"Should they get re-baptized"s off-topic - it's opinion-based. However, here's a sample of what some teach and practice.

In various Churches that I've attended, including Baptist, Evangelical Free, and local community non-denominational Bible Churches, getting baptized again is fairly common.

This is based on the belief that Baptism doesn't save us, but is, instead, an outward sign of obedience to God.

In such denominations, the belief is that being baptized doesn't do anything to save us.  Rather, it's a symbolic, outward profession of our faith, and our rebirth in Christ.

(Reference to back that up at Doing Baptism Baptist Style.)

In cases such as that, it's entirely appropriate to go through another baptism.  Re-committing your life to Christ is perfectly valid, and to go through a ritual that symbolizes this is perfectly OK, but not required.

They don't see it as necessary because to these groups, baptism wasn't necessary in the first place.

As an analogy, to groups that see Baptism from this perspective, it's no different than renewing your wedding vows.

More specific to your question, there are several denominations that address this.  For example, the La Vista Church of Christ has this to say in their article on the topic:

Reading the article makes it apparent that they believe that baptism does have an effect, yet they say that it's appropriate to do a second baptism, and also use the renewing of the vows analogy.

(I'd recommend the full article. This is just the closing paragraph)

  Being baptized is compared to the Old Testament practice of being
  circumcised. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision
  made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,
  by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which
  you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who
  raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12). The very nature of
  circumcision is an act that can be performed only once. Similarly,
  baptism is related to marriage. "Husbands, love your wives, just as
  Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might
  sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that
  He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
  wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without
  blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27). Marriage is for life. Some renew their
  vows, but that renewal doesn't make the original vow of non-effect or
  say that the couple was any less married prior to the renewal. Renewed
  vows have no true effect on a marriage, but still some people like to
  have the reminder.


Is there acceptable pride based on Galatians 6:4 and if so how is it different than regular pride? Galatians 6:4 NIV says "Each one should test their own actions.  Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else,"

What is the nature of this pride he speaks of or is the use of the word pride a loose translation of another concept?

My understanding is that pride is not spiritual and I can't really think of how to mold this statement into my current understanding of spirituality vs the flesh and selfishness.

Comparing versions of the same verse can be enlightening, but also frustrating. By going to biblestudytools.com, for example, you can compare 25+ versions on the same page! Here's what I found by doing so with the verse in question. I've grouped them according to cognates of the same root words (e.g., pride, glory, rejoice, boast, etc.):

take pride in; then you can be proud; then he/you will take pride; be proud of what you yourself have done; be proud of your own accomplishment; cause for pride

he shall have glory; glorying; cause for glory

then he shall have rejoicing

reason for boasting; he will have his boast; reason to boast; what he has to boast of

don't be impressed with yourself [The Message!]

get the satisfaction of a job well done [New Living Translation]

happy with doing a good job

By looking at various versions, then, we see that the word pride is but one word to describe the phenomenon to which you've drawn our attention. Pride could also be translated legitimately glory, rejoice, be happy and boast.
Furthermore, the denotation and connotation of whichever word you insert into the verse in question has to be flavored by the larger context of Paul's letter to the Galatians; namely, the church's problem with Judaizers, of whom Paul said,

they desire to make a good showing in the flesh (v.12).

A point of pride for them was to get their fellow Galatians to become circumcised (v.13), not because they were scrupulous law-keepers themselves, which they were not (v.13a), but because 1) they wanted to boast of their success in compelling others to conform to their twisted ideas, and 2) they were afraid of being "persecuted for the cross of Christ" (v.12b).
That larger context, then, gives us the smaller context for Paul's mention of pride (or glory, or boasting, or rejoicing, or happiness) in verse 4, since the only legitimate form of pride (and there is one!) has to be based on one's own accomplishments, particularly those which flow out of our devotion to Christ and love for him and for others.
The Judaizers were guilty of illegitimate pride (or boasting, or glorying) because they were more concerned with others' works, especially the visible and fleshly ones (such as circumcision), than they were with their own. In other words, they were blatant hypocrites, holding others to a standard to which they themselves did not hew!
A sinful form of pride, of which the Judaizers were guilty, emerges when we neglect focusing on our own responsibilities and begin to focus on others' responsibilities and how they measure up compared to us and how we measure up compared to them. Such comparisons are fleshly, not spiritual.
The "two-sided coin" of bearing one another's burdens and bearing one's own load brings balance to the Christian's life. We bear others' burdens out of our devotion to Christ and our love for him and for others (v.2). We bear our own load because we all, as Paul said in Philippians 2, are to

work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling (v.12a).

This working out of our salvation is a joint effort of course, with us doing our part and God doing his, since

it is God who is at work in [us] both to will and to work for His good pleasure (v13).

In conclusion, there is a legitimate kind of pride, but even legitimate pride needs to be tempered or reined in by realizing God is ultimately the source of any and all of our accomplishments. Like Paul, our boast should be in the cross of our Lord (v.14) where Jesus bore the infinite burden of the sins of the world, including mine and yours. Compared to his burden there, our burdens here on earth are very light indeed!


Do Protestants appreciate the significance of Mary's genealogy? Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment ... and that was counted to him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore. [Psalm 106:30,31 KJV.]
Phinehas hath turned my wrath away ... wherefore .. I give unto him a covenant of peace and he shall have it and his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. [Numbers 25:11-13, KJV ]

The covenant here expressed regards righteousness and is promised to the seed of Phinehas (not as of many seeds - see Galatians 3:16 - but of one) everlastingly.
Now, Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Elizabeth's close relative (Luke 1:5 and 36) not by marriage but by blood (Luke 1:35-40).
Therefore Mary was of the tribe of Levi by birth. Only by marriage was she of the tribe of Judah, not by birth or blood. Nor could any man descended (naturally, by any means) from Jeconiah onwards ascend the throne for :

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Jeremiah 22:30, KJV.]

The curse on Jeconiah was impossible to overcome, by any natural means or by any devious manipulation of the royal rights. It was finished. Humanity was prevented from ascending the throne, for ever.
But then a 'woman compassed a man' and a man married that woman. And that changed everything. Yet that humanity formed within Mary did have a connection ... to Phinehas and to a promise of an everlasting Priesthood.
The significance of this seems to have escaped Protestants, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that it is immensely important regarding the matter of justification by faith, the accounting of the righteousness of God to the faith of them that believe in Jesus Christ.
My supposition is that Protestants, rejecting the worship of Mary, have nevertheless neglected to consider her contribution and have overlooked the importance of her genealogy 1 in regard to the promises made to Phinehas and inherited by Jesus, through Mary. (Just as promises were made to David, the king, and were inherited by Jesus, through - adoption by - Joseph.)
Is this so, that this has been neglected ?
Or is it the case that some Protestants have noticed the significance of these two highly important passages in Psalm 106 and Numbers 25 and have recognized the significance of what is inherited through Phinehas and Mary, as we see so much inherited through David and Joseph ?
And, if so, where is this recognition documented ?

1 Just for background interest I add the following :
With considerable similarity to the tripled repeat of fourteen generations - the royal line - from Abraham to Christ through Judah (see Matthew 1:1-15) it can be shown that there is a tripled repeat of twelve generations (the significant number of covenant) from Aaron to Christ through Phinehas and Mary.
[The genealogy in Luke is sometimes claimed to be Mary's genealogy but it is clearly not so by its content. Luke's list is not the royal line (the throne often not passing by direct heritage) but is the natural line of begetting.]
Data in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles gives the following :
Twelve generations from Aaron to the days of David:
Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz
Twelve generations from David to the Babylonian captivity:
Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanna, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, Ezra
Twelve generations from Captivity until Christ:
Ezra, Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, [G8 G9 G10] Mary, Jesus called Christ.
G8 is either Levi or Eleazar
G9 is either Melchi or Matthan
G10 is Joachim
G8, G9 and G10 are not recorded in scripture but recorded in Doctrina Jacobi and by Tiberias and by John of Damascus.
Any further information on this genealogy would be welcome either publicly or privately.

In my church we interpret the Jeremiah reference to mean that the royal line of David will cease to rule any physical kingdom of this world. This has been fulfilled; no descendant of David now rules as a king in the geographical region known then as Judah.

Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (He said so to Pilate), and so the passage does not prohibit Him from being the King of that kingdom.

For this reason, Mary's ancestry is moot with regard to this issue.


How does societal consecration to Mary differ from individual consecration? For individual Catholics, consecration to Mary is a serious commitment not to be lightly entered into. It seems to me that this consecration is seen as an "advanced" step for people who are already accustomed to contemplating Mary, praying the Rosary, etc. For example, Louis de Montfort recommends a three-week programme of prayer before consecration (Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, paragraphs 227-233). Regarding Marian devotion in general, Pius X wrote (Ad diem illum laetissimum, 2 February 1904):

  (17) For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them.
  (20) Whoever moreover wishes, and no one ought not so to wish, that his devotion should be worthy of her and perfect, should go further and strive might and main to imitate her example.

Similar remarks can be found in Paul VI's Marialis cultus (2 February 1974), John Paul II's Redemptoris Mater (25 March 1987), and so on.

But at the same time, the Popes have frequently consecrated large and diverse groups of people to Mary, including on more than one occasion the entire world. John Paul II said at Fatima (13 May 1982):

  The Mother of Christ calls us, invites us to join with the Church of the living God in the consecration of the world, in this act of confiding by which the world, mankind as a whole, the nations, and each individual person are presented to the Eternal Father with the power of the redemption won by Christ.

and again in Rome (31 December 1984):

  Now is the hour when every person must make an effort to live faithfully this Act of Consecration to Mary.

This necessarily and deliberately includes people who are not Christian, or who are Christians but who disagree with Catholic beliefs and practices about Mary. That is, it looks like this consecration is a first step towards leading people into the Catholic faith, rather than a special additional act by people who are already firmly Catholic.

Is this kind of global consecration in a different category from individual consecration?  What are the intended effects of (repeated) consecration of the world?

My best understanding on the matter:

The word consecration can mean a number of things. In the most basic sense, it's a setting apart of something for a purpose. The significance and meaning of a particular consecration is dictated by the consecrator, the consecrated thing, the consecrated purpose.

In any and all cases of consecration, it is my belief that the consecrating entity holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the consecrated object or person remains properly dedicated to the consecrated purpose. In addition, when a person is the consecrated entity, the person takes on a significant amount of responsibility. In the consecration of a group, the group is also largely responsible; but, only to the extent they were aware of and accepted such a consecration!

For me, it's a toss-up as to wether a self-consecration is more serious and binding than the Church consecrating someone (like a priest). I might lean towards the Church's consecration of a willing individual being the most binding and significant.

And in all cases, consecration "simply" sets the person or object apart to be "used" for a particular purpose. Thus, the consecrating entity is always responsible for overseeing it's "use" or handing off responsibility properly.

In the case of consecrating a large community, including secular individuals, as well as the world, I would understand that to mean, we, the Catholic Church are responsible for guiding the community to serve the intended purpose. I would also posit the effects of reconsecration, can -- but do not always, overwrite previous consecrations.


Can a Bishop forbid some literature to the faithful under his rule? Can a Bishop, forbid the reading of some books (or any kind of literature) to faithful under his rule, in such a way, that it would be sinful for the faithful to not follow his advice?

Yes, as canonist Dom Augustine writes on 1917 can. 1384 (cf. 1983 CIC 823-24),

  § 1. The Church has the right of requiring that books that have not been recognized by her prior judgment not be published by the faithful,1 and that those published by anyone be prohibited for a just cause.2

1. "preventive censorship (praevia librorum censura)," for Catholics only2. "vindicates to the Church the right of prohibiting any and all books which she considers objectionable," even for non-Catholics,

natural law grants "the right to control the reading of her children" to

  Paternal as well as political authorities [who] have the natural right to ward off anything that may endanger the moral and physical welfare of their subjects, and to protect them against bad surroundings, company, literature, etc., in fact anything that is apt to cause insubordination, anarchy, or moral decay. The Church, being an autonomous society, with subjects for whom she is responsible within her own sphere cannot be destitute of the authority and power which enables her to keep her children uncontaminated and to safeguard them against the danger of perversion. Of all the dangers that imperil man's salvation bad literature is perhaps the most destructive. Hence the right to control the reading of her children cannot be denied the Church even from the purely natural point of vantage. Historical facts amply confirm the necessity of preventive censorship in Church and State.11. Cfr. the classical work of J. Hilgers, S. J., Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, 1904.


What does "believe the Bible" mean? What do Christians, namely Evangelicals, mean when they say it? To what extent must the Bible be "believed"? Does this connote a literal interpretation of the scriptures, or does this connote a general attitude of how a Christian may view the Bible?

It means to believe the propositions of Scripture to be true. Everyone believes some set of propositions to be true, which they cannot prove. For a Christian this axiom is: That the Bible is the Word of God (and hence is true in what it teaches).

Same applies to any belief....e.g. for a Muslim, they believe the propositions of the Koran to be true. Likewise Hindus believe the propositions of Vedas to be true. Atheists believe the propositions of Bertrand Russell, Dawkins and so on to be true. And if I believed all that your Pastor said (say his name is "Smith") then I would be called a Smithian in my belief.

But a Christian believes the propositions of the Bible to be true. For a person to say they are a Christian but say they don't believe the Biblical propositions is nonsense. A person may not state it exactly that way, but if they do not believe the Bible to be true then all they have left are their own muddled thoughts at least as far as being a Christian is concerned. So the propositions that God made the world, that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died and rose again from the grave and is coming back again, that God is a Trinity of persons etc all these propositions are clearly in the Bible (1 Cor.15:1-4). To believe these to be true is to be a Christian. Not to believe them is to be something else.

You ask, "Does it denote a literal interpretation"?  It depends on the genre of the passage being read e.g. if the genre is metaphorical then the passage needs to be read metaphorically or else confusion will reign. Where it is historical genre, then it needs to be read as history,  poetry as poetic and so on. The Bible is not written in a single genre.


Was the Apostle John's exile a major hardship? From what I understand, tradition says that the Disciple John was exiled to the Island of Patmos. Would this have been an inconvenience or a major hardship?

John exile to Patmos was a way to get rid of him. They tried killing him by immersing him in boiling oil, but God preserved his life. I think more out of shock and fear, his Roman captors sent him to Patmos to keep his influence away from the populace.

For further reading see the 1883 book Acts of the Apostles by Ellen G. White

EDIT:

Here is a brief description of the conditions on Patmos in White's Book, Acts of the Apostles.

  Patmos, a barren, rocky island in the Aegean Sea, had been chosen by
  the Roman government as a place of banishment for criminals; but to
  the servant of God this gloomy abode became the gate of heaven. Here,
  shut away from the busy scenes of life, and from the active labors of
  former years, he had the companionship of God and Christ and the
  heavenly angels, and from them he received instruction (p.571) for the
  church for all future time.

|

  While his surroundings might (p.572) be desolate and barren, the blue
  heavens that bent above him were as bright and beautiful as the skies
  above his loved Jerusalem. In the wild, rugged rocks, in the mysteries
  of the deep, in the glories of the firmament, he read important
  lessons. All bore the message of God's power and glory.

Though I'm not sure it's relevant, for full disclosure the author was a Seventh Day Adventist Christian.


What did Paul mean when he called Jesus the "firstborn from the dead"? note: All Scripture quoted is from the King James translation.
I have noticed that Paul referred to Jesus as the firstborn numerous times:

Colossians 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Colossians 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Hebrews 11:28  Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Hebrews 12:23  To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

I am especially interested in the phrase "firstborn from the dead" from  Colossians 1:18. Was Paul referring to being dead to sin or being dead physically and being resurrected to eternal life, Something even more elusive to me?

In a family, the firstborn son had special privileges that set Him above all others.

Jesus, in ushering in the resurrection for all, had the privileges of that firstborn son.

Note: For a long time, I used to think of this strictly in chronological terms - but it isn't warranted.  Elijah & Elisha resurrected dead people. Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were also raised before Jesus' resurrection - so it can't simply be a matter of being the first raised to physical life.

As to eternal life, which Jesus ushered in, sure - but not physical.


Where were the Magi from? I heard an idea that the Magi that followed the star, came and brought gifts to Jesus, came from Japan. However, the one saying this didn't mention the source. He mentioned the fact that Japanese people are really smart and even in those days they knew how to interpret the astronomy.

While the Bible doesn't specify the origin country of the magi, I'm wondering if there is any source we can trust mentioning where they came from.

Wikipedia says:

  The phrase from the east (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν), more literally from the rising [of the sun],[citation needed] is the only information Matthew provides about the region from which they came. Traditionally the view developed that they were Babylonians, Persians, or Jews from Yemen as the kings of Yemen then were Jews, a view held for example by John Chrysostom.[citation needed] There is an Armenian tradition identifying the "Magi of Bethlehem" as Balthasar of Arabia, Melchior of Persia, and Gaspar of India.[26] Bible historian Chuck Missler has also written about this tradition.[27] Historian John of Hildesheim relates a tradition in the ancient silk road city of Taxila (near Islamabad in Pakistan) that one of the Magi passed through the city on the way to Bethlehem.[28]

Are there any other sources?

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr states that the Magi in the Nativity account came from Arabia, relating them to Isaiah's prophesy:

  Isaiah 8:4  (Brenton LXX)

    For before the child shall know how to call his father or his mother, one shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria
    before
    the king of the Assyrians.

Justin counters Trypho's objections that the prophesy relates to Hezekiah and not Jesus:

  But show me yourselves [i.e. "you Jews"] first of all how it is said
  of Hezekiah, that before he knew how to call father or mother, he
  received the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the
  presence of the king of Assyria. For it will not be conceded to you,
  as you wish to explain it, that Hezekiah waged war with the
  inhabitants of Damascus and Samaria in presence of the king of
  Assyria. For before the child knows how to call father or mother,
  the prophetic word said, He shall take the power of Damascus and
  spoils of Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria. For if the
  Spirit of prophecy had not made the statement with an addition,
  "Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take
  the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria," but had only said, "And
  shall bear a son, and he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils
  of Samaria," then you might say that God foretold that he would take
  these things, since He foreknew it. But now the prophecy has stated it
  with this addition: Before the child knows how to call father or
  mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria.
  And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to any one among
  the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our
  Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia
  worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your
  land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his
  ungodly and sinful character. For you know,” continued I, “that the
  Holy Spirit oftentimes announces such events by parables and
  similitudes; just as He did towards all the people in Jerusalem,
  frequently saying to them, Thy father is an Amorite, and thy mother a
  Hittite [Ezekiel 16:3].

  Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXVII

No other ante-Nicene Church writing that I am aware of associates the Magi of the Nativity account with any other and/or more specific location.


Why Was Jesus Represented as Being Born in a Cave? I'm wondering why Jesus's birth/Nativity started being represented as occurring in a cave, as opposed to some structure having a manger in it (Luke) or the family home (Matthew).

This first occurred in the Protoevangelium of James, and the motif then appeared in Justin Martyr (Trypho 78) and Origen (Celsus 1.51). Inevitably a cave in Bethlehem was found, over which the Empress Helena with Constantine then built the Church of the Nativity ca. 327 CE. The cave became the standard Nativity site in Orthodox Christianity, while in the West the cave motif stood alongside Luke's and Matthew's accounts and was often depicted in art.

My question is why did this motif arise in the first place?

The possibilities include: Competition with Mithraism or with other mystery religions in which rites were conducted in cavelike structures, or with other pagan deities/heroes born in caves? Simple reliance on Isaiah 33:15-16 (Septuagint version) as per Justin? Prefiguring Jesus's eventual entombment (also descent to hell)? An allusion to Christians using caves and catacombs? Simple assumption since in Palestine caves were sometimes used as stables and so could contain a manger (but funny that Luke didn't mention the cave, and why overtly contradict Matthew)? Or is it just general symbolism for caves found in myths (dark primordial state where creation including light occurs (here that of the new era), the womb, place of transformation, etc.)? Something else?

Some scholars argue that it was common for a house at the time to have a basement-cave serving as stables
This interpretation would say that Jesus was always represented as being born in a cave because it being part of a house was the typical arrangement at the time, and so we assume that's what actually happened. Thus there is no conflict with an interpretation of Matthew 2:11 saying that it refers to the house Jesus was born in (although he was likely moved from the cave to the living area of the house by the time the Magi arrived) or Luke's description of a manger but not a cave since he didn't see the need to comment on something that was commonplace.
Nazareth Village is a historical reenactment site in Israel that includes "a carefully researched re-creation of Jesus hometown" as it appeared in his time, including houses with this arrangement. Claire Pfann, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of the Holy Land, talked about the Nativity while going through the village with a reporter. After Pfann argues that Mary and Joseph would have been expected to stay with family and that the word for "inn" can also be translated as "guest room", the reporter summarizes her explanations of the cave as follows:

Downstairs, the courtyard led to a room in the basement, which was really a 'cave' dug out of soft limestone. That room was used for storage. Nearby outside the housewife would be sieving grain. The families kept large jars of olive oil and wine in the cave. There were stacks of wheat and grain, too. [...]
The family would bring their prized animals inside for protection and lead them into the basement cave where they would eat from the feeding trough-a manger.
Jesus could have been born in a room like the basement 'cave', then wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in the manger, as is written in the gospel of Luke. The animals would have been moved out, and clean hay laid down. Some of the women, midwives who were experienced in delivering babies would have come down here to help Mary.

In other words, Pfann's argument is that with a house full of family in town for the census, the only place to have enough space to deliver a baby was the basement-cave where animals, and the manger where they ate from, would have been.
It's worth noting that even in the modern era, there are still people who live in caves in Palestine and other areas of the Middle East and also use part of it for livestock.
So from this argument, some scholars would say that the answer to "why was Jesus represented as being born in a cave?" is that he actually was, although not the sort of cave we might think of today.
There is also scholarly support for the cave of Jesus' birth being the same cave below the Church of the Nativity
Professor Qustandi Shomali of Bethlehem University states that the cave that is now under the Church of the Nativity was recognized shortly after Jesus' ministry as his birthplace:

"We do know that the identification of the site where Jesus was born already traditionally goes back to the middle of the first century at least," Shomali said.

Stephen Pfann, also of the University of the Holy Land (and I assume some relation to Claire Pfann above), corroborates Shomali's statement.

"Around what was left of the house which was only a cave where the virgin gave birth to the Child," said Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land. "People remembered this. People within 15 years were already going back to that site to visit it."

Naturally, the news article with these quotes doesn't cite the historical sources that led the professors to this conclusion (that's not what the article is about), but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they came to this conclusion through research and not unfounded speculation. Still, it may be worth looking up their work or contacting them directly if you'd like to know more about how they came to that understanding.


Did Martin Luther think John Calvin is a "son of the devil"? I read from here (a Chinese website) that Martin Luther called John Calvin a son of the Devil.

Now I have never seen this quote anywhere. Did Luther say something like this to Calvin? If yes, why?

I cannot find a reference that he did, but it's possible he may have on a specific issue. From my research there is no evidence that he every called Calvin "the son of the Devil" and in fact those are Calvin's words, not Luther's.

Let's get some facts.

Calvin and Luther were contemporaries, both living in Europe during the early to mid 1500s. However, Luther was born in the 1480s and Calvin was born in 1509. Also, while both men were fluent in Latin, each wrote the majority of their works in their native tongues. Calvin in French, Luther in German.

However, it seems, while they had significant theological differences in many areas. Luther appreciated Calvin and Calvin appreciated Luther.

  Luther and Calvin appreciated each other's work. In a letter to Bucer in Strasbourg in 1539, Luther sent his regards to Calvin. He mentioned that he had learned of a few of Calvin's writings. The Institutes was probably one of them. It is true that in many respects there is no difference between Calvin's ideas and that of Luther's, but it is not true that he is only a duplicate of Luther. Calvin had Luther as a starting point, and without difficulty, he remained loyal to his great predecessor. But at the same time, he also surpassed him, especially in his view of the Lord's Supper and church organization. In the history of church and culture, he has an independent place next to Luther. (1)

I think I may (however) have found the source of the quotation you refer to. These were not Luther's words, but Calvin's own:

  Often have I been wont to declare, that even though he were to call me a devil, I should still not the less esteem and acknowledge him as an illustrious servant of God. (2)

This was a discussion of Luther's possible reaction to Calvin's views on the Lords Supper which were a marked contrast both from Rome's view but also Luther's. This was an acknowledgement both to how indebted he felt to Luther, and his strength of will that he was willing to disagree with Luther and potentially face his notorious wrath.

Likely this fear was motivated by the heated debates between Luther and Zwingli over the presence of Christ in communion.

  At several points the debate was harsh and acrimonious. At other points the parties appeared to seek each other’s forgiveness for namecalling and for their breakdown of charity. (3)

There is little (if any) evidence that Luther ever addressed Calvin's position on the Lord's Supper specifically. However, due to the debates with Zwingli and Calvin's acknowledgement that his position was more similar to Zwingli's than Luther's he recognized that he certainly put himself in position to be the target of heated name calling or other insults from Luther.

Sources:

(1) Martin Luther and John Calvin
(2) Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII, p. 661.
(3) The Relation Between the Lutheran and Calvin Reformation
(4) Zwingli and Luther: The Giant vs. Hercules