Why do we use the name "Jesus" if the apostles did not use it? The gospel says that God has given us one
name under heaven by which we a saved.
It appears throughout scripture that God
puts great importance upon names in both
old and new testament. The bible says
there is no other name by which we should
be saved, so if the apostles did not
attribute that to the name "Jesus" why
should we?

I understand that some say it does not
matter whether or not we say the right name
because God sees our intent but is that
just our own reasoning justifying our own
error?

The apostles spoke Hebrew, Greek and
Aramaic, they therefore either called him
Yeshua, Iesus or Yehoshua haMoshiach.

If the apostles did not caste out demons or
perform miracles in the name "Jesus" or
even use the name, why should we
continue to use it?

Your question seems to be referring to:

  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. - Acts 4:12 ESV

Which in context is referring to the name given in verse 10:

  let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. (ESV, emphasis added)

Given this, your focus (while not actually explicit) can only be on the issue of whether this translation of the name of the Lord is correct. The context of verse 10 particularly the 'of Nazareth' component, reveals the Apostle Peter is denoting a person who is identifiable by that name and description.  The significance of the name is tied directly to the person it refers to.  Since 'all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' indeed from 'every tribe and tongue and nation', the appropriate name for them to use to call on him, must be the name used to identify that person in their language.


Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important in Eastern Orthodoxy? I am looking into the Eastern Orthodox church, and was wondering why believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin was an important belief? Now I don't have a real problem if tradition holds that she was a perpetual virgin, and then it makes sense as some sort of historical fact about Mary. But it seems like the belief is more important than just historical fact.  There are many prayers to the Theotokos (Mary) that refer to her as "ever virgin." If church tradition held that Jesus had blue eyes, I would have no reason to doubt it, but I wouldn't insert "oh blue eyed one" into my prayers to Jesus.

If Mary had married Joseph and then had sexual relations within her holy marriage, there is nothing sinful or less worthy about her in my mind. The impression I am getting is that perhaps celibacy is seen as a higher calling than marriage, and I don't think I believe that is true to the Gospel. Being celibate might be a calling for some, like Paul, who needed to be away on travels a lot, and wouldn't be there for a family were he to get married.  But we can be faithful to God in our local communities as well (such as our local priest) and his mission is no less important than the ministry of the celibate man.

Among other things, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is understood to be the fulfillment of a prophesy by Ezekiel (44:2)1:

  This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in
  by it, therefore it shall be shut.

This meaning is ascribed to the verse by a number of Church Fathers, included Methodius of Olympus2 (d.311), Cyril of Alexandria3 (378-444), Jerome4 (347-420).  The Ever-Virginity of Mary was a pervasive doctrine of the first millennium Church, as witnessed by John of Damascus (676-749) in his summary of the Faith, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

  The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin,
  having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For
  although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth
  her first-born Son [Matthew 1:25], yet note that he who is
  first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word
  “first-born” means that he was born first, but does not at all suggest
  the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the
  appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord
  says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world
  [Matthew 18:20], not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us
  after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says,
  And so shall we ever be with the Lord [1 Thessalonians 4:17], meaning after the general resurrection.5

John continues with an explanation which underlines why it is unacceptable within Orthodox doctrine to accept that the Virgin did not remain so after the Nativity: "For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid!"

The above explains, I think, why the ever-virginity of Mary is an important belief, but it perhaps does not explain why the accolade of "Ever-Virgin" is frequently included in the prayers of the Church.

Although it is certainly possible to look upon the texts of Orthodox Services as nothing more than scripts for the choir, they actually serve a much deeper meaning.  Each Orthodox Service can be seen as a theological lesson.  Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev states:

  The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, even
  higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not
  everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value
  and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church.
  Liturgical texts, on the other hand, have been accepted by the whole
  Church as a “rule of faith” (kanon pisteos), for they have been read
  and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries.
  Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that
  might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were
  eliminated by Church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and
  authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church’s
  hymns.6

Arguably, Jesus having had blue eyes - which receives no mention whatsoever in Scripture or the writings of the Fathers - does not merit the sort of theological lesson of sorts as does the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos.  You will find similar theologically-laced accolades for other things throughout the service books.  God is repeatedly referred to with the prefix "all merciful" or sometimes with the suffix "the lover of mankind".  The Apostles are called "praiseworthy" or "wise".  Sometimes the Theotokos is referred to as "all-pure".  All these things are little reminders of Orthodox doctrine that are heard throughout the service.

1  Elder Cleopa of Romania, The Truth of Our Faith
, p.87
2  Oration concerning Simeon and Anna
3  Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, Sermon I
4  Letter XLVIII, 21; also Against Pelagius II
5 Book IV, Chapter XIV
6 Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology


Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple? The temple was destroyed sometime around AD 70.

Which New Testament books were written after that catastrophe?

Do these books comment at all on the destruction of the temple?

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before).

No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty. Many scholars use this information to date the NT canon as fixed before the destruction of the temple, on the reasonable grounds that had it been known about some NT writers would certainly have mentioned it as evidence of the correctness of prophecy. Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book "Redating the New Testament", or its popular version "Can we Trust the New Testament?".

Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later.

See the excellent summary on Wikipedia.

So to answer the questions:

Probably none of them
No, they don't.


Does any church denomination believe it possible to go one moment without sinning? In looking at the opposite of this question posted here, I realized it seems better to raise this question in the reverse.

Assuming the doctrine of original sin, and God's work of the holy Spirit in a believer, can a believer ever do something where the motive becomes sinless? This would assume that the motive could not be improved upon any moral ground but was perfect and 100% pure.  In this sense I guess that one idea, or one thought, or act, would be no less pure then our acts and thoughts in heaven?  Maybe it means it would be as pure as Christ's thoughts himself? Is this possible, or impossible? Does any church body believe in such perfection for at least one moment.

Note: My own church tradition under Luther, Calvin, St, Augustine, etc. does not believe this is possible, but am curious if any other church does.

Most Wesleyan/Holiness denominations teach that it is at least theoretically possible. This would include Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and the Salvation Army, as well as most churches that have "holiness" in their name.
This doctrine is known as Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification (depending on the denomination) and was outlined by John Wesley in a sermon titled Christian Perfection. Wesley later wrote a book, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.
Essentially, the teaching is this. God expects us to give up our own desires and live for him alone:

1 Peter 4:1-2
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.

It is God at work within us that enables us to do this:

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
1 John 5:18
We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

If God works in us and protects us and enables us to stop sinning, then all we have to do is give up our own willfulness and let God take control.
In theory it's that simple, but in practice it is far from easy. The Apostle Paul struggled:

Romans 7:19-23
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

After preaching Christ for many years, Paul wrote from prison that this perfection was still in the future:

Philippians 3:12-14
Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

And even Jesus was tempted to follow his own (human) will rather than God's:

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

So God's expectation is that we don't sin any longer. God has promised to protect us and work in us to accomplish this, and with God all things are possible. Therefore, theoretical perfection is possible. Just don't ask me for examples of people who have actually achieved it.


Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts? Tribal women in Africa, South America and Papua New Guinea have gone around with bare breasts for countless generations. When Christian missionaries arrived they convinced the women to cover their breasts. What arguments did they use to achieve this? I see nothing in the Bible about God commanding women to cover their breasts.

No, there are no explicit instructions in the Bible to not have bare breasts. Biblical references to modesty are interpreted differently given a particular time and place -- similarly with interpretations of 'nakedness.' There is no explicit verse covering the topic, Christians must infer instructions of modesty on their own. This has been accomplished in a wide variety of ways throughout history. Contemporary women's clothing would be have been considered horrifyingly indecent centuries ago, but they are commonly worn by Christians today.

The only specific article of clothing that a small minority of Christians adhere to is St. Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). Many contemporary Christians interpret that instruction to be specific to the congregation he was speaking to due to the context of their time and place (same with the references to gold, pearls, and remaining silent).


Can a Roman Catholic be re-catechized and re-confirmed? As I understand it, many Catholics mark the sacraments according to the human lifespan. During infancy, children born in Catholic families would be baptized. Around 7 years of age, children would typically have their First Holy Communion. Around 14 years of age, children would typically have to take confirmation classes and be confirmed. Okay. So, let's say a Catholic doesn't really pay attention to Sunday school or confirmation class or thinks the theology is too confusing and dense or falls half-asleep in class due to boredom. And the only reason why he wants to get confirmed is that his family has a tradition of giving out confirmation presents. In adulthood, the Catholic tries to be a good Catholic, but the information that he was supposed to learn never got encoded into his memory. Plus, he might pick up some heretical information from a Lutheran friend or a Quaker friend. If the priest suspects that such a person is completely ignorant of Catholic theology, would the priest recommend a re-catechism and re-confirmation? If the said person confesses that he has completely forgotten everything he learned, then can such a person receive a re-catechism or re-confirmation, or is it too late as he was already confirmed? Basically, I am just wondering whether Confirmation is an one-time deal in life or can be given out despite that the individual is already confirmed (however poorly catechized he might be).

The Catholic canon law  889 §1 says that those eligible to be confirmed are: "Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation" (My emphasis).


What is the proper title for someone who was a pope and is now canonized as a saint? There are a number of men who became Pope who were later canonized as a saint, such as John Paul II and Paul VI. What is the proper title (in English) for such individuals when referring to them today (as opposed to in a historical sense)?

Pope John Paul II
Saint John Paul II
Pope Saint John Paul II
Saint Pope John Paul II
Something else?

By "proper", I mean the title preferred by the Catholic Church, and which I imagine is used in its official communications.

What is the proper title for someone who was a pope and is now a canonized saint.

I do not believe there is a single proper way to address a pope who has been canonized.

That said, I have seen all four of your examples in usage. There seems to be no official way of doing so either.

That said, the most common usage (and the one I prefer the most) is your third example: Pope Saint “X”. In fact I have just finished writing a book on the lives of various saints and blesseds in which I address canonized popes as such.

In the homily of canonization of Pope Paul VI, Pope Francis referred to the newly canonized pope as Pope Saint Paul. See here at 1:43:00.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.

Pope Blessed Pius lX, pray for us.

Addendum: About the usage of the surnamed title of great.

  Scholars of canon law say that there is no official process for declaring a pope "Great"; the title simply establishes itself through popular and continued usage, as was the case with celebrated secular leaders (for example, Alexander III of Macedon became popularly known as Alexander the Great). The three popes who today commonly are known as "Great" are Leo I, who reigned from 440–461 and persuaded Attila the Hun to withdraw from Rome; Gregory I, 590–604, after whom the Gregorian Chant is named; and Pope Nicholas I, 858–867, who consolidated the Catholic Church in the Western world in the Middle Ages. - Pope John Paul II

It should also be noted that in the Church’s official Litanies of the Saints titles are not placed along side of particular saints, but are placed separately within the litanies according to the traditional manner of praying to the saints.

Example:

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

All the Holy Apostles, pray for us.

Saints Leo and Gregory, pray for us.

All the Holy Popes, pray for us. (This invocation is permitted to be added at occasions like an ordination or solemn profession to the litanies of the saints.)

The same manner would apply to praying to popes that are saints. But this is a traditional way of praying the litanies of the saints only.


Why does God promise descendants for Hagar? Why does God promise Hagar that she'll have a lot of descendants?

If God had planned on fulfilling his covenant through Isaac, the promised son of Abraham, and knew that the strife between Jews and Arabs would be so destructive, why does he instruct Hagar to return and submit to Sarah?

Paul writes in Galatians 4 that Ishmael represents slavery and bondage while Isaac represents the promise and faith and deliverance.  Only Isaac would receive the inheritance while Ishmael would not.

Later on, Ishmael is cast out.  So, I am just wondering: why does God increase their descendants, when he knows that they're not recipients of the new covenant?

God's promise to Abraham was that he would have descendants as numerous as the Stars, what he did not promise is that they would all be his chosen people only that Isaac would.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Genesis 12:7  And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

This is not the promised land it is the middle east, (or what is now the Arabic nations), this is the promise God made to Abraham:

  Genesis 15:1 through 6  After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

(This should also answer your other question concerning Isaac)

  Genesis 15:13 through 16  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Even though this was many years before Jacob became Israel it is clearly the Nation of Israel that God is referring to. This not only shows that God is precognizant of events, but that he has a particular path upon which he intends his blessings to flow.

As for showing compassion to Hagar let's take a look at that:

  Genesis 16:7 through 13  And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

By that last statement it is evident that she has not served God, since she is asking why are you looking out for me, have I served you in some way I am not aware of? Also sending her back to be subjected to Sari after the way Sari treated her doesn't seem much like  compassion to me.

  Genesis 16:3 through 6  And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

So it was Sari who caused Hagar to be cast out into the wilderness to start with, and that after setting up Hagar to bear Abraham's child in her place since she could not have children of her own.

  Genesis 16:1 and 2  Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

The descendants of Ishmael are the Arabic Nations, the descendants of Esau are the Palestinians, and the descendants of Jacob is the Nation of Israel: and this is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. There was no promise made to Hagar, and matter of fact she was always harshly treated by her mistress. So I fail to understand why you feel that God had compassion on Hagar.


Is the emotion of sexual passion a result of the fallen state? (Catholic perspective) I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the Catholic teaching explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site.

There is a statement:

  Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and
  so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual
  arousal.

What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?

The statement given in the O.P. has no foundation in Catholic teaching.

There is nothing wrong with sexual passion per se; however, like all passions, it needs to be regulated by reason. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

  2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.


In which denominations are Sunday school classes categorized distinctly by grade/age level? There was one time, a long time ago, somewhere between mid- to late-1990s, I went to a church with family at night. I thought the adults would worship on the first floor, while the children were taken to the basement, where there would be a cafeteria that led to both the kitchen and the classroom. There was only one classroom. No room for another. All the children went to that classroom. There was a chalkboard, books, posters, a big desk for the teacher, and some smaller desks. For a while, that greatly influenced my perception of church layouts. The narthex-like hallway that led to the sanctuary or nave on the first floor, everything else in the basement.

Fast-forward many years to the early second decade of the 21st century, I visited a Baptist church, a Methodist church, and a Lutheran church, and they all seemed to have many classrooms, arranged by grade levels. Only the tiny family-oriented non-denominational church had a kids room, which was called a "nursery", empty and outgrown. And for the Catholic church, I couldn't find a classroom anywhere except the detached but affiliated Catholic parochial school nearby, presumably filled with many classrooms. In the basement, the Catholic church had a gift store. There were children but they participated in worship with adults.

Anyway, since when did churches begin to categorize religious education by grade level? And in which denominations is this so?

My experience has been that this is not so much a function of denomination as church size.

To wit:

I've preached at Baptist churches where there was one room for all kids - because there were fewer than 5 kids on a given Sunday.  (Remember, there are a lot of churches out there with less than 40 people!)
I've preached at an Episcopal church with 3 classes - one for under 5s, one for 1st - 3rd grade, and one for 4th - 6th grade.  Again, with a regular attendance of about 100, that was the best grouping that preserved both critical mass (you need more than one kid!) and some age separation (don't put 4th graders with 4 year olds.  Neither wants to be with the other.)  Indeed, when an influx of children warranted it, we rejiggered the age boundaries.
I've taught Sunday School in a Baptist church that insisted on one grade per age, and on those Sundays when your one kid didn't show up, well, it was rather demoralizing.
I've been part of a mega church that had three or four classes for each grade.  There, we used the highly biblical model of looking deep into the child's soul, and assigning them a class based on the first letter of their last name.

In short, this isn't a doctrinal thing, it's a practical thing.  You need enough kids to get an actual class, but you want to keep them about the same age too.  That's a function of church size, not theology.


Why did Satan fall to Earth? He could have fell to Mars, Venus, or GJ667Cc. I understand that he needed to be cast out of heaven, but why to Earth where he has caused more trouble?  Are there any apocryphal books which describe this differently?

This question would not have even made sense to anyone prior to Copernicus, let alone to anyone who originally heard or received this image.

When this story was first received, there would have been no other body for him to land on. The earth was the center of all, and the "wandering stars" aka other planets, were just lights in the sky.

One of the most commonly applied ruled of hermeneutics is that a text can not mean what it could not mean to the original hearers. In other words, if a lie is held widely enough, it must be addressed in terms of the lie. Our cosmology may have changed, but to the original storytellers, it was the truth.

Bear that in mind, and the answer to your question becomes obvious: there was no other place for Him to go.


How do different eschatological views interpret Isaiah 65:17-25? In Isaiah 65, God talks about the new heavens and the new earth. I was wondering how people with different eschatological views interpret this. After thinking about this for a while, I have thought of a few different possible interpretations.

From a premillennial perspective, it could to refer to the literal new earth, where God's people will live after the final judgement. This is supported by the use of the words "new heavens and new earth", and the fact that there will be no weeping or crying (v.19) and that lambs and wolves will eat together (v.25). But the text also says that death and sin will still exist (v.20) which contradicts this view.
It could also refer to the millennial reign of Christ, where death and sin still exist. But from a premillennial perspective, this period of time is never referred to as the "new heavens and new earth", is it?
From a preterist perspective, it could refer to the current time we are living in, where death and sin exist. But then, most of the passage must be viewed as extremely figurative. For example the verse about the lamb and the wolf, or verse 17 which says that the former thing shall not be remembered.
Finally, from a postmillennial point of view, it could refer to the time of Christ's reign, the age that began in the first century and will continue until his final coming. During this period of time, the earth will undergo a gradual change while his kingdom is expanding throughout the world. The text might then refer to the last days of this age, still several years from now. But is then verse 17 true, will really all former things be forgotten? And what about the lamb and the wolf, will the expansion of the kingdom also affect the behaviour of all animals?

Have I rightly described each of these views? What other views are there?

--

This is my first post in this forum, please tell me if there is something wrong with my question and what I should remember in future posts!

The four  eschatological viewpoints described are quite different and to a large extent mutually exclusive. Furthermore each viewpoint has adherents with different concepts of what that viewpoint actually describes, so it hard to be too definitive. Some history of the passage would help put them in perspective.

It is generally accepted that Isaiah chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, son of Amoz, who lived during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah, although there were numerous later additions and changes to that portion of the book. Chapters 40-55 are attributed to an anonymous author now known as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah, who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This author had a very different style to that of First Isaiah, who used brief, emphatic diction, compared to Second Isaiah's poetic style and more extensive vocabulary. Chapters 56-66 are attributed to another anonymous author now known as Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah, who lived shortly after the Return from Exile. So, chapter 65 can be seen as referring to the hopes and aspirations of the Jews who had recently returned from Babylon. We can see the hardships of captivity compared to the joys of freedom:

  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred
  years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed
  (Isaiah 65:20)
  And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and
  another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat ... (Isaiah
  65:21-2)

To Third Isaiah, freedom was such a wonderful experience that he compared it to paradise, as in verse 65:25:

  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Premillennialism is the belief that Jesus will literally and physically return to earth before Christ's reign for 1,000 years during a golden age of peace. However, there are two very distinct schools of premillennialism, historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism, which is largely based on the nineteenth-century ideas of Darby and Schofield. Premillennialism is largely based on interpretations of the Books of Daniel and Revelation, along with the the Olivet discourse from the synoptic gospels, but Isaiah 65:17-25 fits in well with this view.  Wayne Jackson, in an article entitled 'Examining Premillennialism' draws on Isaiah to support the concept of premillennialism, but does not mention verses 65:17-25.

Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of those living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations. Postmillennialism also teaches that the forces of Satan will gradually be defeated by the expansion of the Kingdom of God throughout history up until the second coming of Christ. Many postmillennialists also adopt some form of preterism, which holds that many of the end times prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Although I see Isaiah 65:17-25 as less of a good fit here, because the the age that began in the first century and will continue until his final coming has not so far been like a paradise on earth, some postmillennialists see it as being at least a figurative reference to postmillennialism.

Full preterism says that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or 'end times' events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgement. Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgement-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in 70 CE or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero, but that the second coming and the resurrection of the dead have not yet occurred. Preterism does not focus on an earthly paradise like that portrayed in Isaiah 65, although like all Christian eschatology it looks forward to eternal paradise after the final judgement.  Nevertheless, some preterists do see echoes of preterism in Isaiah 65:17-25.

The question asks what other views there are. One view that has to be discussed is that the passage can only be read literally, reading verses 65:17-25 as the author originally intended them to be read. On this view, it is simply a statement of hope for the new Jerusalem and the new land the Jews were to begin building after the Return from the Babylonian Exile, with God's help.


Why is Christmas on December 25th? Why was December 25th chosen as the day to celebrate Jesus' birth?

This is a good recent blog post covering Pope Benedict's thoughts on the matter.

The key is the date set for the annunciation (March 25th):

Traditionally held to be the first day of creation
Traditionally held to be the date when Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac after a 3 day journey to Mount Moriah
Extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' annunciation (when the Angel Gabriel came to Mary)
Futher extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' crucifixion (on the Lunar calendar at least) to parallel Abraham's attempted sacrifice and align with the passover.

Therefore, as vsz says wikipedia says, but should say louder, add 9 months, et voila you've got December 25th.

As for the age of the feast as celebrated by Christ's Church, said blog post also notes St. Pope Leo the Great mentioning the feast of the Nativity of Jesus in the winter:

  But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. (St Leo Magnus, Sermo 26)

I'm not going to say that only stupid people think that Christmas is an attempt to quash pagan solstice shenanigans, but I will say that people ought to think long and hard before believing the Discovery channel over thousands of years of tradition.


Did a married couple live in fornication if annulled? (Catholic) I read here point 33.

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never
existed?
Not exactly. It means it did not exist in the way the Church
says that marriages exist. A declaration of nullity does not deny that
a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship that
existed was not what the Church means by marriage.

If it never existed according to what the Church means by marriage does this make their previous "relationship" full of fornicating after the church declare the annulment? Does the annulment make their previous cohabitation full of fornications?

The short answer is, “not exactly,” and they are probably not culpable for their sexual relations. In fact, to the degree that each party thinks he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other, such acts, far from being sinful, would actually be meritorious.

The first observation to be made is that the text from the Diocese of Oakland, it seems to me, needs some clarification. A declaration of nullity (the term “annulment” is never used in Church legal jargon) makes no judgment regarding the sincerity  of the parties involved. The marriage tribunal simply analyzes the relationship in question and asks, “Is this relationship a marriage?” If the answer is “yes,” then it is declared “valid;” if the answer is “no,” then it is declared “null” (invalid).

So, in fact, a declaration of nullity affirms that no marriage existed between the parties, or, if you prefer, that the conditions for a marriage were never in place.

As regards the O.P.’s question, as Geremia pointed out, sexual relations between two persons who are not married is called fornication not adultery:

  Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2353).

On the other hand,

  Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery (CCC 2380).

However, before coming away with the idea that couples in a putative (but invalid) marriage are living in sin, it is important to recall that couples in a putative marriage usually believe sincerely that they are married while that putative marriage lasts. In that case, they are not (to use the terminology from moral theology) formally committing acts of fornication. In other words, they are not guilty of any personal sin for the mere fact of having sexual relations.* Indeed, since each party probably believes that he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other (and to the degree the each one is convinced of that), the actions would actually be meritorious.

(It should be noted that one of the possible grounds for a declaration of nullity is the existence of a previous marriage, kept secret from the other party. In that case, the sexual relations would, objectively speaking, be a kind of adultery. Naturally, the degree of culpability would depend on the knowledge and deliberateness with which each party acted.)

* According to Catholic moral theology, three conditions must be fulfilled in order for a person to commit a grave (mortal) sin: (1) the action itself must be gravely immoral, (2) the person must know fully what he is doing, and (3) the person must give full consent of the will (he must be not be motivated by grave fear). Regarding condition (2), the lack of knowledge can be about the particulars of the situation (e.g., when a soldier mistakes a fellow soldier for an enemy and accidentally shoots him), or else about the norm itself (e.g., many Catholics are not aware that contraception is gravely immoral). See CCC 1857. In the case of a putative but invalid marriage, there is clearly a lack of knowledge of the particulars of the situation, even though, objectively speaking, any sexual act would be a kind of fornication (or adultery in a few cases). In such a case, the sexual act would not even entail venial sin (and, to the degree that each spouse thought he was fulfilling his duty to the other, would even be meritorious).


Why does the bible never specifically condemn premarital sex? Most Jewish and Christian scholars define πορνεία (sexual immorality) to include premarital sex. However, where either the old or new testament mention specific sexual immoralities, it's never included.

In Leviticus 18 many specific acts are condemned, but not premarital sex. Likewise, Paul spoke specifically of incest in 1 Corinthians 5, adultery and prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6, and homosexuality in Romans 1. If premarital sex is indeed immoral, it is obviously the most prevalent form of immoral sexual acts by far, so then, why doesn't he repeatedly warn against it?

The reason premarital sex is not mentioned specifically is because engaging in sex was what consummated a marriage. In essence, the first time a couple engage in sex, they are married.

  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
  -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)

This is the case with virgins who are not betrothed. Betrothal, on the other hand, is considered to be legal marriage in every respect, waiting only for its consummation by sexual union.

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph was compelled to "put away" Mary, because the evidence as he initially saw it suggested his wife had committed adultery.

Additional Comments

Paul, like every religious Jew who cared about righteousness, understood that Leviticus 18 was the yardstick against which all sexual activity was to be measured:

Leviticus 18

If you aren't in the green circle, says God, then the land will eventually spew you out "when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;"

God is a nation builder, and best practice in regard to sexual union is essential in order to achieve it.

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is Paul's attempt to deal with various questions that had been put to him by the Church at Corinth, and the very first issue he addresses is immediately relevant to the concerns of the OP.

  It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
  -- 1 Corinthians 7:2

Paul is advocating celibacy, which he elaborates on later, but he understands that not everyone is like himself. So, here he suggests: if you desire to touch a woman/man, then find yourself a wife/husband in order to avoid fornication.

In Paul's theology -- if you're having sex and are not of the "one flesh" mindset, then you're a fornicator or an adulterer. He couldn't be any clearer.

Conclusion

In our modern culture, sex is much less about having children than it is about pursuing pleasure. This clearly wasn't true of the Jewish culture as we have it depicted in the Bible, where sex was mostly about building families.

The underpinning principle in regard to sex is found right back at the beginning of the biblical narrative:

  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
  -- Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

This "one flesh" union can only happen ONE TIME.


Why, according to the Catholic Church, did the Reformation happen? Has the Catholic church ever put forth a theological theory or statement as to why the Reformation happened?

Please note....

I'm not asking about how the Reformation happened.

History is what it is.

I want to know whether or not the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Reformation has any theological significance (i.e. some kind of "Great Apostasy" or prophetic fulfillment) in the grand scheme of salvation history.

Surely the doctrine of Divine Providence can nail down some sort of idea as to why this gigantic occurrence has happened.

The Catholic Encyclopedia actually has a response to the reason for the Reformation:

  The papacy had become the powerful centre of the family of Christian
  nations.  With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it
  came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical
  bodies were no longer confined to the ecclesiastical domain, but
  affected almost every sphere of popular life. Gradually a regrettable
  worldliness manifested itself in many high ecclesiastics. Their chief
  object -- to guide man to his eternal goal-- claimed too seldom their
  attention, and worldly activities became in too many cases the chief
  interest. Many bishops and abbots bore themselves as secular rulers
  rather than as servants of the Church.

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

While this is just a summary, the same Catholic Encyclopedia also has an extensive and fair representation of other issues that impacted the church during the time prior as well as immediately after the Reformation.


Were we to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever if Adam had not sinned? I read this statement from the Catholic resource. Q. 255

A. We were not to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever even if
Adam had not sinned, but after passing through the years of our
probation or trial upon earth we were to be taken, body and soul, into
heaven without suffering death.

What is this teaching based on within the Catholic Church?
There is a similar question and the answer that coincides with this statement mentions Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to
take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

But I can't really see how that verse says we were not meant to stay in the paradise.

There are two considerations here. First is that Catholics do not view the creation story as strictly literal. When we talk about the "garden of Eden', that certainly could have been a real place, but more importantly, it is symbolic of the harmonious existence humans held with the qualities of original justice, original holiness, the preternatural gifts, and the supernatural gifts. Were we to remain trapped in a walled off garden forever? No. Did God intend for us to enjoy the aforementioned gifts He gave us in the beginning for our entire extent in this world? Yes.

Second, one of the many titles Catholics give to Mary is "New Eve" because Mary embodies everything Eve meant to be before she chose against God. Mary is held to never have died;however, she is not here on Earth either. Catholics hold that Mary, after her time on Earth, was assumed body & soul into Heaven. It is reasonable to believe that had Eve never sinned, she and Adam would also been granted Heaven and spared death.

In short: that resource is correct with respect to Catholic beliefs.


What is the name of God in the Bible, Quran and Talmud? I listened to the Muslim prayer. They pray to god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus. I was wondering if this is the same god as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Also, is this related to the god of Old Testament?

Also is this related to the god of Talmud? The Talmud says Jesus is a criminal paedophile blasphemer and his mother was a prostitute. So, is the Talmudioc god the same as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

1.The Jewish and Islamic concept of God is the same: one God, one person, one mind.This is same in Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism written between  200 CE/AD- 500 CE/AD.Thus it is different from the Triune God of Trinitarian Christianity, God as three persons, three minds, co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

2.The Talmud does contain references alleged to be a about Jesus Christ and his mother Miriam, where he is referred to as Yashu (believed by some Christians to be derogatory). For example:

Yashu is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)

Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)

“Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)

“Miriam the hairdresser had sex with many men.” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only)

“She who was the descendant of princes and governors (the virgin Mary) played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sanhedrin 106a)

“Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)

However, this does not mean that what is written in Talmud is what all Jewish people believe or practise or most of them for that matter.It only reflects Rabbinic exegeses and commentaries.


What's the difference between resurrection and reincarnation? I'm pretty sure resurrection is vastly different from reincarnation, even though both describe living again.

So what is the difference between them? And is one doctrine more typical of Christian belief than another? Are there Christian religions that believe them to be similar or the same thing?

Reincarnation involves living again, but having another life in a new body, as a new person/being.

On this one, Wikipedia is as good a source as any.

  Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul
  or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body
  that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality
  of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of
  the Indian religions.1 It is also a common belief of various ancient
  and modern religions such as Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is
  found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as
  Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.2

Resurrection involves living again in your own body (or perhaps a glorified version of it), as yourself.

And again with the Wikipedia definition.

  Resurrection (anglicized from Latin resurrectio) is the concept of a
  living being coming back to life after death. It is distinguished from
  resuscitation (see below), and is a religious concept used in two
  distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls
  that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized
  eschatology), or else a belief in a singular "Resurrection of the
  Dead" event at the end of the world. The Resurrection of the Dead is a
  standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions. In a number
  of ancient religions, a life-death-rebirth deity is a deity which dies
  and resurrects. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the central
  focus of Christianity.


Is it hypocritical for Paul to circumcise Timothy in Act 16:3? Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)
   1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

The answer could be right here 'because of the Jews who were in the those parts', however, it seems hypocritical especially given other texts like Galatians 5, where he is harshly admonishing the Galatians who were even thinking about getting circumcised, presumably (and similarly) because of the Jews as well.

  Galatians 5:2 (NIV)
  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be
  circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

The answer is perhaps best given in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (emphasis added):

  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Paul understood, as did Peter (See Acts 10 and Cornelius), that they were no longer bound by the Jewish law. Peter saw that he should no longer call unclean what God considered clean. This specifically included pork and unclean animals.

So, before God, Timothy did not need to be circumcised. However, if your target audience involves Jews, to whom the "uncircumcised" were deplorable, then it is appropriate to be circumcised for the sake of the hearers. Paul said that he became as Jew to win the Jews.  He became weak to win the weak, etc.

Hudson Taylor followed this example as a missionary in China as he donned the clothing and hair style of the Chinese, thereby identifying with them culturally.

So, again, it is appropriate to not offend those with whom you wish to share the gospel, so that what is unimportant does not become an unnecessary stumbling block to your hearers.


Why blame for Jesus's death My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died in order that his death might effect atonement for their sins.

Over the years, there's been a lot of assigning blame for his death. Why has there been such focus on the bad[1] intent of the killers, considering that the end result was completely good[1]?

[1] in Christian belief

At least as far as Judas is concerned, there is an exact answer in Matthew 26:24:

  For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!"

I've also heard it phrased "but woe to him through whom it comes."

That said, God is sufficiently great to turn even evil events to his purpose.  Joseph says as much in Genesis 50:20:

  "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (NASB)

Finally, Romans 8:28 (a verse that it should be illegal to quote without a license!) hints at the same, saying:

  28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Disclaimer: I never have, nor never will tolerate any form of anti-Semitism based on "Christ-killer" propoganda.  As a German student who won a trip to Germany for my study, I was personally sickened when, as part of a class, I had to watch a Nazi propaganda film, that pushed this line of thinking.  The question asked for a justification. I am providing that argument, even if I completely disagree with it.


Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus? Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus? How and why has Christianity fused together the idea of a Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, or messiah, with the concept of something that God will do? Is the verse really pointing to a prophecy that will be fulfilled by a מָשִׁיחַ, or are Christians just vulnerable to the hindsight bias?

Please give the answer in English!

  Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day
  I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that
  they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the
  Lord.

  For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel
  after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst
  and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and
  they shall be My people.

  And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his
  brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from
  their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive
  their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

  לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם
  לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי
  וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה:

  כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי
  הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם וְעַל
  לִבָּם אֶכְתֳּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ לִי
  לְעָם:

  וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו לֵאמֹר
  דְּעוּ אֶת יְהֹוָה כִּי כוּלָּם יֵדְעוּ אוֹתִי לְמִקְּטַנָּם וְעַד
  גְּדוֹלָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה כִּי אֶסְלַח לַעֲו‍ֹנָם וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא
  אֶזְכָּר עוֹד:

-- Jeremiah 31:31-33, chabad.org

The verses of Jeremiah 31:31–34 appear in seven paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of which six (quoted below) are directly relevant. In all of these, Christ the Messiah is the bringer of the New Covenant, which is to be written on the hearts of his people.
This is entirely Biblical. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage verbatim in chapter 8, and then in chapter 9 describes the differences between the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the High Priest of the New, concluding:

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. [Heb 9:15 RSVCE]

Not only is the Jeremiah prophecy pointing to a prophecy which will be fulfilled by a Messiah, it points to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecy by providing the New Covenant.

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.
580 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".
715 The prophetic texts that directly concern the sending of the Holy Spirit are oracles by which God speaks to the heart of his people in the language of the promise, with the accents of "love and fidelity." St. Peter will proclaim their fulfillment on the morning of Pentecost. According to these promises, at the "end time" the Lord's Spirit will renew the hearts of men, engraving a new law in them. He will gather and reconcile the scattered and divided peoples; he will transform the first creation, and God will dwell there with men in peace.
762 But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant."
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
[The seventh is paragraph 2713, about contemplative prayer.]


What would happen if a priest venerated Santa Muerte in an RCC church? In Mexico, the mix of native and Catholic religions has produced an interesting figure called Santa Muerte or literally, "Saint Death."  In many ways, the icons, statues, and venerations ascribed to her fit what many non-Catholics naively assume about veneration.

Furthermore, traditions like Our Lady of Lourdes and The Lady of Guadalupe suggest that new shrines and/or places of veneration can be incorporated into the church, and eventually become, if not canonical, at least typical.

To date, the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte.  The question is - what would it take for them to do so?  If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?  And how would the church change as a result?

I don't know where you got the idea that the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte. The current official position of the Catholic Church is that honoring Saint Death is heresy.ref  Mexico's Catholic Bishop Conference has accused Santa Muerte devotees of mixing Christianity with devil-worship.ref According to a statement by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City on November 3, 2008, popular devotion to the so-called "Saint Death" is not compatible with the Catholic faith.ref The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not issued an official position on this because this is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.

What would it take for them to do so? If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?

A single priest's action would not force the universal Catholic church to take a stand. If a priest, who holds a position which is responsible for souls, acknowledges her as a saint, then the local bishop will have the duty to correct him. If the local bishop fails to do so, then the pope with the Roman Curia will interfere and instruct the bishop.

How would the church change as a result?

With regard to dogma, faith, and related matters, just as for the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church is not going to change. Not for Santa Muerte, or anything else for that matter. But I have no idea about the cultural consequences. The Church might be persecuted, but it is not going to change its teaching: honoring Saint Death is heresy.

Note: Traditions like Our Lady of Lourdes and The Lady of Guadalupe are about a real person, Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God. But Santa Muerte is not a real person, nor do her followers claim as such. So your comparison is not correct.


What is the religion of the Midian people? In Exodus, Moses leaves Egypt and lives with the people in Midian for a few years (Exodus 2:15). I'm wondering what Moses' religious environment was like while he was living there. I know his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Midian, but what does that mean? Was this some Godly priesthood? I don't seem to remember pre-Aaronic references to a priesthood in the Bible... was he priest of some pagan religion then? Some Islamic people believe he was a prophet, is this so?

Neither Moses nor God seemed to regard him as a member of the nation of Israel, as the Hebrew people were all enslaved in Egypt at the time. Also, the people of Midian didn't join in the exodus, and I'm assuming this means they were definitely separate from Israel, and not lead to the "promise land." Jethro, however, did come to visit and give practical leadership advice, so obviously Moses held him in high esteem...

Any thoughts?

This is only partially answered Scripturally.

  Genesis 25:1-2 (KJV)

  25 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

  2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and
  Ishbak, and Shuah.

The significance of this passage is that the Midianites were descendants of Abraham, and as such would have shared the knowledge of the God of Abraham.  They aren't in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and clearly not in the chosen line, but they would at least have knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I'm not overly fond of Wikipedia as a source, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian:

  Religion

  The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, who was a son of
  Abraham through his wife Keturah. This can be seen in the following
  Biblical passages. Genesis 25:1-2 1Then again Abraham took a wife, and
  her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan,
  and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. (King James Version)[7]

  The Midianites through their apparent religio-political connection
  with the Moabites[8] are thought to have worshipped a multitude of
  gods,[9] including Baal-peor and the Queen of Heaven, Ashteroth. An
  Egyptian temple of Hathor at Timna continued to be used during the
  Midianite occupation of the site. However, whether Hathor or some
  other deity was the object of devotion during this period is
  impossible to ascertain.

Therefore, even though the Midianites didn't worship the God of Israel, enough knowledge of Him must have existed among them for Jethro, Moses' Father-In-Law, to make the following statement after hearing about the Exodus, and God's miraculous freeing of the Jewish People from their Egyptian bondage:

  Exodus 18:9-11 (KJV)

  9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to
  Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians.

  10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of
  the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath
  delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.

  11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing
  wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

Based on the combination of these facts, it would appear that the Midianites, like all other cultures, turned away from the God of Abraham, unto false gods.  Jethro, however, appears to have been made a believer in the God of Abraham after hearing of His miraculous works.


In what way did the ante-nicene church read Sapiental passages like Proverbs 8:22 christologically? Commentators like Ellicott indicate that the ante-nicene Christian writers (from A.D. 100 to the Council of Nicaea) read Proverbs 8:22 christologically, that is, in reference to Christ.

In what way did these writers understand this verse christologically?

Early (pre-Nicaea) church fathers interpreted this verse christologically in the sense that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father.

Ellicott writes that this was the view held by early fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian:

  When in Christian times it was observed how well the description of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs harmonised with that of God the Son in the New Testament, such passages as this were universally applied to Him, and the present one was rightly interpreted as describing His eternal generation from the Father. Such was the view, for instance, of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr uses Proverbs 8:22 in his argument about the nature of Christ, and concludes:

  Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. (Dialogue with Trypho, 129)

In reference to Proverbs 8:22, Tertullian writes:

  Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things. (Against Praxeas, 7)

Others, like Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 10) hold the same view, and some argue that Origen represented "patristic exegesis" in interpreting the passage as referring to Christ's "continual coming into existence" (Waltke, Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, p127).

It's important to note that later writers, like Augustine and Athanasius, developed different views of how this passage applies to Christ.  They did this as a response to the Arian controversy.  The earliest fathers, however, when interpreting the passage christologically, understood it to refer to the eternally begotten nature of Christ.


Are there analogues to the Mormon/LDS high school seminary in other Christian denominations? The LDS church has a high school seminary system where high school students intensively learn the teachings of the LDS church.  This is a week-daily 1/2hr - 1 hour class taken before normal school hours and then the kids go to their highschool.  Do such systems exist for those in other Christian denominations?

There is World of Life and Torchbearer do something like it in the evangelical circles.

World of life : http://www.wol.org
Torchebearer : http://torchbearers.org


"The Son of Man", Jesus' favorite designation of himself, in view of Numbers 23:19-20? (This question has been closed though OP rephrased it.I will risk asking it rephrased again):

Given this quote from Numbers 23:18–20

  Then he took up his discourse and said, "Arise, O Balak, and hear; Give ear to me, O son of Zippor! God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it."

Given Jesus used the title the "Son of Man", to refer to himself, 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels. For example, he asked his disciples: "who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (Matthew 16:13). Given this expression "the Son of Man" is used only in the sayings of Jesus.

The question is (in view of no consensus—agreed upon single—interpretation of this phrase, "the Son of Man", has emerged despite almost two centuries of Christology):

What are the reasons for this disagreement on interpreting Jesus' favorite designation of himself (despite the plain words of both Jesus and Numbers 23:19-20)?
What are the major Christological interpretations of this designation "the Son of Man" and what are their biblical bases?

Thank you very much (please do not close).

Since I was the OP of the original question I believe the following is a partial answer.First of all, I totally disagree with the frequent denial of historical Jesus.

The answer of  @the dark wanderer, "the most common answer to your question is that what you have found is just another Biblical indication of The Mystery of Faith (i.e. the Trinity)", reflects the Christological perspective of what is called Pauline Christianity ( not in a derogate way here) or Trinitarian Christianity as apposed to Unitarian Christianity.

Pauline Christianity perspective on the phrase Son of man is that it is, I gather, a possible affirmation of Jesus humanity as the title Son of God affirms his divinity. Jesus as the Son of God is essential to Trinitarian Christian creed since the first century AD. In contrast, Jesus as the Son of man was never part of Trinitarian Christianity creed.

That is said, in the Hebrew Bible the expression "son of man" (בן–אדם, ben-'adam) also appears  far more times.
The use of the article the in "the Son of man" in the Koine Greek of the Christian canonical four gospels is not found in any old Greek documents . Geza Vermes says the  Christian canonical four gospels usage "the" son of man is not found in the Hebrew Bible , suggesting that the term origin is Aramaic ברנש, bar nash/bar nasha. He concludes that " in these sources "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title." jewishencyclopedia elaborates:

"Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant. Psalm viii. 5-7 is quoted in Ḥeb. ii. 6 as referring to Jesus, but outside the Gospels, Acts vii. 56 is the only verse in the New Testament in which the title is employed; and here it may be a free translation of the Aramaic for "a man," or it may have been adopted from Luke xxii. 69. n the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church."

But still I don't feel I have a satisfactory answer to my original answer and of course yours.This why it is important not to hasten to close questions.This way we will never learn anything.

For farther readings:

Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath (2010)

Addendum: @the dark wanderer statement "docetism hasn't been resurrected as modern heresy for a while, those Muslims commit a modified form of this heresy in saying that Christ was never really crucified, he just created an illusion that appeared to be" is a misstatement based on misunderstanding of both Decetism and Islamic creed about Jesus Christ. Muslims do not say that Jesus Christ made it appear he was crucified.They say 'they slew him not for certain', i.e. he did not die in the cross for certain (that is at least my understanding).


1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Are We Still Living in the Great Apostasy? 1 Timothy 4:1-3:

Amplified Bible (AMP)

  4 But the [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in
  latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to
  deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach,

  2 Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are
  seared (cauterized),

  3 Who forbid people to marry and [teach them] to abstain from [certain
  kinds of] foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by
  those who believe and have [an increasingly clear] knowledge of the
  truth.

The question is simple. Are we still living in the great apostasy? This matches quite a few doctrines quite closely.

"Framing" is requested - more explanation of the question given:

The scriptures explained that a great apostasy would occur after the death of the apostles. The apostles acted as a restraint to this (2 Thes 2:6,7).

The apostles of been dead for thousands of years, and christianity has fragmented from one denomination "falling" away from another.

The question thus remains: Are we still living in the apostasy? That is, is there any reason to think it is in any way over?

If christianity.stackexchange can't answer this, then this whole site is just idle chatter of opinion.

This question was strong-armed into being closed because it was too "open ended" and it was requested that this be answered to the bias of a specific denomination, though a factionally based answer goes against the point of the question. Please reference this scripture: 1 Corinthians 1:10

(LDS)

The answer is No! We have a living prophet on the earth today by the name of Thomas S. Monson. Christ's church was restored to the earth by a young prophet by the name of Joseph Smith Jr. This I know through fasting and prayer. Is there individual apostasy? Yes.

What is an apostasy?
An Apostasy is a general falling away from the truth. This occurred after the death of the apostles. (Amos 8:11-12; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 4:3).

When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

The Apostles prophesied of the falling away or Apostasy. One example is Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

Restitution of All Things

The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19-21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.

Joseph Smith

At fourteen years old, Joseph had a desire to find the truth. Like the rest of his family, he was deeply religious, and when the time came for him to be baptized, Joseph had to decide which of the many Christian denominations to join. After careful study, he still felt confused. He later wrote,

  "So great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong [ … ] In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?" (Joseph Smith-History 1:8, 10).

Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance. He read:

  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).

This verse deeply impressed him. He decided to pray about what he should do, with simple faith that God would hear and answer him.

In the spring of 1820, Joseph went to a grove of trees near his home and knelt in prayer. He described his experience:

  "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me [ … ] When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith-History 1:16-17).

This vision of Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ was the beginning of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet of God. He was told that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth. Over time, Joseph Smith was chosen to establish Christ's Church and restore the priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name. He was led by God to an ancient record and given the ability to translate it into English. This record is called the Book of Mormon. He continued to pray and receive revelation for the Church throughout his life. These revelations were compiled into a book of scriptures referred to as the Doctrine and Covenants and shows that God still leads His children today. Joseph Smith formally organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830. (Video Rendition)


What does Romans 11:32 mean? For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. NLT

Does this scripture mean that God made everyone disobedient just to have mercy on us?

I do not believe so. In fact, the NKJV version tells it a little differently and doing so it lines up with more scripture.

  32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have
  mercy on all. -Romans 11:32 NKJV

God doesn't "make" us be disobedient but rather he brings to light our disobedience so we can repent.

  4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is
  the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed
  time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden
  in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time
  each will receive their praise from God. -1 Corinthians 4:4-5

  There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that
  will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard
  in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner
  rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
  "4'I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body
  and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should
  fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to
  throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows
  sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.
  7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be
  afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.'"- Luke 12:2-7

The point it is making is that according to God we are all disobedient and therefore we all need mercy and grace. He provided that grace through the finished work of Jesus on the cross.


At what point would a sin become mortal if you learned about it through self-study? Let's say John was baptized as a Catholic as a baby but did not go to Catholic school or receive any religious education at all and his parents did not take him to mass.

As an adult John begins to go to mass by himself.
He begins to read some Catholic books and learned that gossip is a mortal sin. He did not know this up until reading it. Does that mean all his past gossips are considered to be venial sins? If he gossips after reading the material is it then a mortal sin? Or would it only be mortal after a priest has educated him as to why it's a sin?

Mortal sin (from mors = death) forfeits sanctifying grace and is the supernatural death of the soul. St. Augustine defines it as "something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law."

To be a mortal sin, these conditions must be satisfied:

Knowledge (either natural or supernatural) of the act's sinfulness (offense to God).
Freely performing the sin.
Grave matter

If you didn't know your act was an offense to God at the time of committing it, then it isn't a mortal sin.

Still, in cases of doubt, you should confess it to a priest, who can help judge if it was mortal.


What is Christ's role in salvation according to Arian theology? This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of this question.

The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view.

From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation?

Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.

From Arius' own hand:

  We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the holy spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other. . . . If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.1

According to Arius, he and his fellow Arians believed everything in common with the rest of the church, excepting only that they disagreed on the 'origin' of Jesus:

  But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? . . . Before [Jesus] was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.2

But in response to the Arians, Athanasius argued that their perception of Jesus was that any human was ontologically equal to Jesus.

  For granting what they say, that, whereas His qualifications were fore-known , He therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference between Him and those who receive the name after their actions, so long as this is the ground on which He as others has the character of son.3

According to Athanasius, the Arian position meant that humans were qualitatively identical to Jesus, with the only substantial difference between that Jesus was created before humans were. Ergo, because Jesus is created, he cannot save what is also created:

  Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself.4

This should be taken with a grain of salt, however; in the process of arguing against the Arians, it appears Athanasius exaggerated their view of Jesus, so he may well be making a straw man argument.5

1 Letter of Arius and Euzoïus to Emperor Constantine, c.327 AD. Emphases mine.

2 Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, c.318 AD. Emphasis mine.

3 Athanasius, De Decretis, paragraph 6. Emphasis mine.

4 Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, paragraph 69. The objection is, fundamentally: Only uncreated God can save, so if Jesus is not uncreated God, he cannot save. I believe this is a rather weak argument, philosophically and scripturally, but I digress.

5 e.g. Athanasius claims Arius' belief is that 'the Son is [not] by nature the Father's true Word . . . He is improperly called [the] Word [of God]', contrary to Arius' self-expressed belief (as in the first quote above) that 'the Lord Jesus Christ . . . [is] God the Word'.


Do Protestants believe Jesus misquoted Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16? In Matthew 21:15–16, Jesus is praised by children in the temple after healing the blind and the lame. When questioned by the chief priests and scribes, he points out that what was occurring was prophesied in the Old Testament.

  Matthew 21:15–16 [ESV]

  But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?"

But... in the ESV bible and the Masoretic text, Psalm 8:2 uses the word "strength", not "praise" – a completely different word, and not a contextual fit for Jesus' point.

  Psalm 8:2a [ESV]

  Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength...

However... in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dated Jesus' time), Psalm 8:2 uses the word "praise" – exactly as Jesus quoted it.

This is one of a number of differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (another would be that the Septuagint included the 'extra' books of the Catholic bible, which Protestants call Apocrypha).

Most Protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text as the foundation of their Old Testament, believing it to be 'better' (closer to the original) than the Septuagint.

Most Protestants also believe the New Testament is inspired and inerrant, and that Jesus is part of the Triune God.

How do Protestants reconcile this?

Do they believe Jesus just misquoted this verse?

The issue of New Testament quotations of the Old Testament is broad and well-studied, so it's well worth reading a book like John Wenham's Christ and the Bible to get a feel for the complexities.

For example, not only is there a diverse manuscript tradition for the gospels, there are also multiple versions of the Septuagint, and there's always the possibility that even a particular reading in the Masoretic text is not faithful to the original inspired text.  And even more fundamentally, it is thought that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so what appears in Matthew is a translation into Greek.  This just scratches the surface – there are many ways to explain the divergence between the OT text and NT quotations.

However, in this case, the most common explanation Protestants give is that "praise" is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word found in the Masoretic text in Ps 8:2.  R. T. France is a respected Anglican NT scholar, and in New International Commentary on Matthew, 789, he writes:

  The psalm speaks of how God the creator silences his enemies by means of "strength" (so the Hebrew) which comes from the mouths of children.  "Strength" is often ascribed to God in a formula of praise (e.g., Pss 29:1; 59:16–17; 68:34–35), and when that "strength" issues from mouths it is not hard to see why LXX translated it as "praise."  The LXX version makes the relevance of the text to Jesus' situation in the temple more explicit, but the underlying sense of the Hebrew also is of vindication by what children say, and it is that sense of which Jesus' quotation here depends.

He also cites other scholars, particularly R. H. Gundry and K. Stendahl, to defend the Septuagint's choice of translating the Hebrew word 'ōz as "praise" instead of "strength":

His mention of "instruments of strength" in 2 Chr 30:21 is particularly interesting – it demonstrates the close relationship between "strength" and "praise" when this Hebrew word is used in this context.

So there's no need, then, to assume that Jesus "misquoted" the inspired text.  Instead it seems likely that he emphasized a legitimate, but not necessarily the only, meaning or sense of the word in question.


According to open theism, did God know that the crucifixion of Jesus would benefit anyone after him? Ronald Nash challenges open theism in his book, Life's Ultimate Questions, in particular on the point of God's foreknowledge during the crucifixion of Jesus.  Since God's knowledge of the future is "open" or "dynamic," according to open theism, he is not omniscient in the classical sense.  Nash argues:

  Think back to this God's conundrum at the time his Son was dying on the cross.  At that moment, the finite God of open theism had no way of knowing if even one human being would accept his Son as Savior.  This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. (323)

Nash seems to be ignoring the case of OT saints (whom presumably God knew would be saved through the death of Christ).  But otherwise, is he right?  Is he fairly representing the view of open theism?  Do its adherents generally admit that God didn't know if Christ's death would result in a church, or indeed a single post-resurrection believer?  If he didn't know, did he have any purpose for sending Jesus to earth other than saving OT saints?

If there is disagreement on this among the various types of open theists, I'd like an overview of their positions.

Ron Nash doesn't seem to be wrong here in the facts he's presenting, however he's picking his words carefully.

This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

Could easily be rephrased as

God did not dictate that particular people be saved, but allowed free will to preside and for none to be saved forcibly - just as his Son died on the cross, he left himself vulnerable to the possibility that Jesus' death on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

I've intentionally taken a tone here which makes it sound like God is being overly noble in choosing to take on this "impotence" that Ron Nash describes. My point here is that while he has the facts right, his statement is misleading in that it appeals to a subjective view of what that God would be like, when the same facts can be portrayed very differently.
As you might assume, there are a number of varieties of Open Theism - here is the Wikipedia summary:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.
Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard was thought to hold this position.
Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen,[45] and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.
Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas and Dale Tuggy espouse this position.
Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd and Arthur Prior hold this position."
"Open Theism" - Wikipedia

The key thing here is that all of the positions described above agree on one thing: God does not know the future (this is what "epistemically open" means). Where these views split is that the "Nescience" camps believe the future is "alethically settled" - that is to say that there is already "truth" about the future now in the form of facts. The "Nescience" camps disagree on whether God chooses not to know these facts, or whether he doesn't know these facts because they can not be known.
On the other hand the "Omniscience" camps believe that the future is unwritten entirely, that there are no set truths about the future yet, whether they'd be knowable or not. The split here appears to be less to do with the nature of God and more to do with facts about the future. Either there simply are none (they are neither true nor false- hence not facts) or they are all "might and might not be true". I can't see any real functional difference between these two personally, it just gives philosophers something to argue about..
I'll see if I can find some actual open theist quotes to back this up, but from what I can see, any variety of Open Theist is logically committed to the fact that when Jesus died, it was not a necessary truth that any single future person would be saved.
The only way you can have God knowing any actual facts about this is through some form of middle knowledge (see - Molinism)
But - again, according to Wikipedia, Open Theists do not believe in this by definition:

...Yet other versions of classical theism hold that even though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism are out of sync with:
1 - the biblical concept of God
2 - the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom
and/or result in incoherence

Again, I'll try and find some actual open theist sources rather than just relying on Wikipedia, and I'll update the answer when I do.
On a side note, Ron Nash has a some free courses/podcasts on Biblical Training on the history of philosophy, and also on apologetics. I don't agree with everything he says but he's usually at least entertaining to listen to, in particular he tends to put on a bizarre "false pride" (in contrast to "false humility")- at least, as far as I can tell he's joking about how brilliant he thinks he is.