Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity Like flood legends, legends of heroes of virgin birth and/or virginal conception are not uncommon in faiths across the world.  For example, the Bhagavata Purana tells that Krishna was conceived without sex.  There are many others.

When I was coming up in sunday school and reading Christian literature as a young adult, I remember that the virginal conception was taught to be a pretty special thing about Jesus.  I don't believe I ever heard that this concept was found in other faiths.  It was as if the very uniqueness and absurdity of this claim was enough to show it was true and proved Jesus was divine.

With the flood stories or other ideas which are found in other faiths, the other faiths' stories are often seen as corroborating the biblical account.  This could make sense because those stories could be seen as coming after the biblical event or concept.  But since most of the stories of sexless conception pre-date Christ (though of course not all), they are somewhat different.

Is there anything a Christian might take away from the fact virgin births are found in other beliefs?  Perhaps some kind of global prophecy?  Or is it no more relevant than the fact faith healing and resurrection are also found in other faiths?

(also, didn't find very good tags for this, help if you can)

On other "virgin births" predating the concept of a virgin birth in Christianity:

The notion of the virgin birth in Christianity predates the actual birth of Christ too; it was prophesied explicitly some centuries earlier. Certainly in Isaiah, we have:

Isaiah 7:14 (MSG):

  So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A
  girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son
  and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us)

In addition, the fact that this verse in Genesis (known as the Protoevangelium*) talks of "her offspring" when it was/is more usual to refer to the offspring of a couple as being of the father rather than the mother, is interpreted by some theologians as a prophecy, or at the very least a hint, of a virgin birth:

Genesis 3:15 (MSG):

  God told the serpent:     "Because you've done this, you're cursed,
        cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals,     Cursed to slink on your belly
        and eat dirt all your life.     I'm declaring war between you and the Woman,
        between your offspring and hers.     He'll wound your head,
        you'll wound his heel."

Because this happens right at the beginning of the human race, arguably this reference to virgin birth predates all others (although it is of course less explicit in meaning than the Isaiah prophecy).

Relevance of other virgin birth stories to Christianity

Because there is that hint of a virgin birth right at the beginning of things, the comparison you draw to flood legends is a good one. It is logical that any culture with a collective recollection of the Flood may also have a collective recollection of the events before it; the Creation and the Fall, in which we find the Protoevangelium. In that respect the relevance of legends of virgin births to Christianity is similar to the relevance of flood legends to Christianity.

*Not to be confused with the Protoevangelium of James


To whom the Election applied according to the Calvinist (TULIP)? A. To every human (including Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
B. To every human (except Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
C. To every human who will exist in the future after Jesus ascended to heaven.
D. (if not A/B/C)

In detail :
A. Once Adam and Eve exist on earth (and all the rest of their generation), the possibility for them are :
- they are all the elected one (absolutely go to heaven)
- none of them are the elected one (absolutely go to hell)
- some of them are the elected one

B. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation.
For example : once baby Cain/Abel/Seth (Adam and Eve not included, but the rest of their generation) were born.

C. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation who will be born after Jesus ascended to heaven
For example : assuming there are 10 babies were born at the same time soon after Jesus ascended to heaven, then the possibility on these babies after they die (even if they die after a few days)  are :
- all of these 10 babies will go to heaven (all are the elected one)
- all of these 10 babies will go to hell (none of them is the elected one)
- some of them will go to heaven, the rest to hell (some of them are the elected one

God’s Sovereign Election applies to every human being ever born.  That does not mean that every human being ever born will be saved, and universal salvation is not supported within the Five Points of Calvinism.  God’s election means that from before the founding of the world God had predestined whom He would call and that God foreknew who the elect would be.
As far back as the 5th century the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius.   The five points of Calvinism (formulated in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) was ratified by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Here are a few partial quotes from the book, The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1963:

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (pages 16-17): “God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will...  God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected...  Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.”
PARTICULAR REDEMTION OR LIMITED ATONEMENT (page 17): “Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.  His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners.”
LIMITED ATONEMENT (pages 53-54): “The gospel invitation extends a general outward call to salvation to all who hear the message.  In addition to the external call, the Holy Spirit extends a special inward call to the elect only.  The general call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, but the special call of the Spirit cannot be rejected; it always results in the conversion of those to whom it was made.”
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, is he pleased in his appointed and  accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1)

Some the Scriptures used to support these beliefs include Romans 1:6-7; 8:30; 9:23-24; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 4:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 9:15; Jude verse 1.  Regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation see Romans 8:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Peter 1:2; John 1:12-13.
Not everyone is elected unto salvation.  I hope this helps to clarify the Calvinistic view of Election.


Which churches today send the most missionaries? Was the early church a missionary church? Matthew 28:19-20 leads me to believe it was:

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
  and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Can we take this to mean that if Jesus Christ's church is on the earth today that it should still be involved in missionary work (ie. teaching all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe the commandments)?

If so, which churches today are the most missionary-minded (in terms of the number of missionaries they send)?

Currently The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over 82,000 full time proselytizing missionaries and another 10,000 service or humanitarian missionaries. All serve on a volunteer basis and are required to pay most of their expenses. Financial assistance is also available for those who have limited resource. See here for more info Aside from full time missionary service, all members are taught to be missionary minded in their everyday lives and always look for opportunities to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.


What is the biblical basis for the theory that Christians should not eat pork? I've been tormented by hearing from friends and such (that aren't religious) that they've heard and been told eating pork and chicken is a sin. And that it means going to hell....which is obviously out of proportion.

My Question: where, how, and why did this come about? Was it haters? Or people against Christianity totally? Or what?

Note: I know it's of a muslim culture/religion but not christian that I am aware of. At least not of a religious law like the 10 commandments.

The Scriptural basis for the Jewish diatary laws is Leviticus 11.
In particular, verse 7 says:

  And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted,
  yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

(This and all following quotes are taken from King James Version, for consistency.)

These admonitions are repeated in Deuteronomy 14; particularly,
verse 8 says:

  And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
  it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch
  their dead carcase.

This is all well and good, but up until here we are talking of the
Old Testament and Mosaic Law. Coming into the New Testament, the
Evangelists (Matthew 15:1–20, Mark 7:1–23 and
Luke 11:37–41) report Jesus' words:

  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
  that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Of course, in this case it was an issue of the disciples not washing
themselves before eating bread, but it establishes the precedent for
the question described in Acts 15, which has been described as the
first Ecumenical Council, or the Council of Jerusalem:

  And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren,
  [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye
  cannot be saved.
  When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and
  disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
  certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles
  and elders about this question.

  (...)

  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of
  this matter.
  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said
  unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
  God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should
  hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

  (...)

  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
  from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions
  of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and
  [from] blood.

These abstinences referred to in verse 20 are the so-called Noahide Laws,
which are required of all the sons of Noah, i.e., everybody, since all
men who were not sons of Noah perished in the Flood. Therefore, there is
a sound Scriptural basis to argue that Christians are specifically
allowed to eat pork.

That being said, there is nothing that prevents a Christian from deciding
to follow these laws anyway (as Paul himself did, check Acts 21:26). This
gives rise to the so-called Jewish Christianity, who are Christians who
confess the divinity of the Christ while at the same time keeping the 613
Jewish mitzvot.

Finally, I think that your Muslim friends' reactions are probably due to
a misconception that Jews and Christians are bound to their halal
dietary laws, or that they consider that anyone who violates the commandments
given to them in the Quran and/or the Sunnah are going to earn eternal
condemnation, regardless of whether or not they ever converted to Islam
in the first place.


In which year was Christ born? This question is a spin-off from On which date was Christ born?

There are differing views on the birth year of Christ, which also affect the dating of the resurrection (as we know Jesus's age on death). Which years are possible, and what are the arguments?

One theory:
It's not the easiest thing to follow, but The Star of Bethlehem has a very interesting hypothesis on the subject.  The information is all there, especially in footnotes, but unfortunately it's not presented very clearly on the site itself... they want you to get the video.* The upshot is that the date is most likely 3BC, and maybe 2BC.
You get around the Herod problem because of a recent study that found a typesetting error made in 1544 for the manuscripts used to date Herod's death. It is now believed he died in 1BC, rather than 4BC:

The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC (9). Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier...
But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler (10). It turns out that a ... printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC.  Strong recent scholarship confirms that date (11).

* As a side note, the video is well worth your time. It's just a shame that they charge for it; this is something that would be good to see spread more widely.


Is there a particular order in lighting candles on an advent wreath? In the Catholic tradition, is there a particular order in lighting the candles on an Advent Wreath?

If there is, why?

Which candle is lit first, and what order follows to the last candle?

Where is the pink candle located in relation to the rest?

The advent wreath is an evergreen wreath with four candles. One is rose (pink) and the other three are purple.

Before lighting any candles on the wreath you should bless the wreath on the first Sunday of Advent.

Make the Sign of the Cross 1
The Father or head of the household then prays "Our help is in the name of the Lord." The family then responds "Who made heaven and Earth." Pray both verses if you are alone.
Optionally, read Isaiah 9:1-2, 5-6. These verses, and indeed the wreath itself, remind us that Christ is our light and his Birth brought us salvation.
Again, the Father prays:

  O God, by whose word all things are sanctified, pour forth thy blessing upon this wreath, and grant that we who use it may prepare our hearts for the coming of Christ and may receive from Thee abundant graces. Through Christ our Lord. [Response] Amen.

Sprinkle the wreath with Holy Water.
Optionally, if you are read to light the first candle for the first time you may to that now.
End with the sign of the cross.

Now you are ready to light the candles. The candles are not all lit at once. They are lit every night, adding one each week. For weeks when multiple candles are lit you must light them making the Sign of the Cross.

First make the Sign of the Cross.
Light the appropriate candles:

For the first week light only the top purple candle.
For the second week light the top purple candle and the bottom purple candle, in that order.
For the third week light the top purple candle, the bottom purple candle, and the left rose candle, in that order.
For the fourth week light all the candles starting at the top, moving to the bottom, then the left (the rose one), and finally the right.

Each week has an Advent prayer that is prayed after lighting the candles. The prayers are traditionally from the prayers that begin Mass for the beginning of that week. There is some variation. The following are from the traditional Latin Mass:

  Bestir, O Lord, Thy might, we pray thee and come; that, defended by Thee, we may deserve rescue from approaching dangers brought on by our sins, and being set free by Thee, obtain our salvation. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to prepare the ways of Thine only-begotten Son, that through His coming we may be worthy to serve Thee with purified minds. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Incline Thine ear to our prayers, O Lord, we beseech Thee; and make bright the darkness of our minds by the grace of Thy visitation. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Bestir, O Lord, Thy might, we beseech Thee, and come; and with great power come to our aid, that, by the help of Thy grace, that which is hindered by our sins may be hastened by Thy merciful forgiveness. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

Leave the candles burning for a time. Some families let them burn throughout dinner, or during a special devotional time they have set aside each evening.
Extinguish them later that evening.
Make the Sign of the Cross.

Explanation and Symbolism

Like nearly every other devotional, the Sign of the Cross starts and ends the lighting of the Advent wreath. Likewise, the wreath is lit in the same pattern. Lighting the Wreath is a nightly event that can be used as a way for Christians to intentionally keep Christ on their minds and in their hearts during the Advent season. The colors are not necessarily important, but they add extra symbolism.  Purple reminds us that this is a time of penance, fasting, and prayer. The rose candle is lit on Gaudete Sunday, the third Sunday in Advent, which is past the half way point to Christmas. The rose color gives us encouragement and reminds us that Christmas is indeed coming. During the Advent, the priest in your local parish may wear purple vestments during the Mass, but on the third Sunday, he may wear rose vestments. This is the same symbolism at work.

From your picture, the following looks to be the most appropriate arrangement and lighting order:

The candles on the wreath arranged as below make it easier to see the order of lighting tracing the sign of the cross.

1. The sign of the cross is made by moving your right hand up to touch your forehead, then to the lower middle chest, then to the left shoulder, then to the right. Some Eastern traditions move from right to left. While doing this you pray "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." When on the word Father touch your forehead, and Son touch your chest, and Holy touch one shoulder, and Spirit touch the other shoulder.

How to bless your Advent Wreath
How to light an Advent Wreath
Advent prayer for the first week
Advent prayer for the second week
Advent prayer for the third week
Advent prayer for the fourth week
Prepare for Christmas with an Advent Wreath
The colors of the candles
What is Gaudete Sunday
How to make the Sign of the Cross


Origin of the idea that "demons" and "fallen angels" are the same thing? Background

So I'm studying angels and demons right now, attempting to put together a picture of what the Bible teaches on these topics, and I'm struggling to find anything in the Bible that suggests that "demons" are the same thing as "fallen angels"! I'll admit that it would make things much simpler to explain if we could just assume that demons are fallen angels, but I need more to go off of than just convenience. :-) So I'm thinking the origin of this popular idea must be extra-biblical?

Question

Most of the sources I've come across simply assume that demons and fallen angels are the same thing. My question is why? Where does the idea come from that demons and fallen angels are the same thing? It is prevalent enough, but I can't find a source on it.

Failed Attempts

I came across a Catholic teaching on the topic, and they simply asserted it and cited verses where demons are mentioned... but none of the verses actually said anything about fallen angels. I came across a Catholic forum that ended in someone simply asserting that demons are by definition fallen angels... but I know people who believe they are different, so it can't simply be a dictionary definition thing. I've looked all over Scripture and the closest thing I can find is that Satan is in charge of demons and Satan is in charge of fallen angels... but that doesn't tell me that they're the same.

Difficulties to Address

The difficulty I'm having in simply assuming they are the same (besides not having a good reason to assume this) is that Scripture portrays angels -- and even Satan (a fallen angel) as spiritual beings that manifest as men, radient beings, etc., as if they're somewhat similar to people, but generally invisible to us. Demons, on the other hand, are portrayed as spirits that are extremely uncomfortable with being outside of a physical creature. When Jesus cast out a group of demons, they begged and pleaded with Him to at least let them go into the pigs nearby (etc.) I get the picture that demons are like internal parasites, whereas angels -- even fallen angels, are like people who walk, talk, etc. but have some differences like being invisible, extremely powerful, etc.

A Good Answer

I would welcome sound logical arguments from Scripture, but in the absence of such arguments, any historical background on when Christians began equating these two terms would be sufficient. Just wondering where the idea comes from, as I'm assuming it wasn't just an unfounded assumption that all the prominent Bible scholars now accept without question!

As close as I can understand these Scriptures they apply to the fallen Angels:

  Revelation 12:7 through 9 NKJV  And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9  So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

That does not say that those Angels are Demons, However; other Scriptures do lead us to understand they are:

  Luke 11:18 NKJV  If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub.

The Scriptures refer to Satan's helpers as both angels and demons:

  Matthew 25:41 NKJV  "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

compared to:

  Revelation 16:13 and 14 NKJV  And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14  For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Even though I cannot give you any verses which say that Demons are fallen Angels these Scriptures taken together along with the description of the Angel opening the gate to the bottomless pit leaves little doubt in my mind that they are the same.

Hope this helps and sorry to not give you something more solid to use.


How much were the 30 pieces of silver (Judas's payment) worth? We often see ancient sums of money approximately described in terms of some modern currency.

How much were the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received as payment for his betrayal worth, expressed in today's currency? (USD or Euro, around 2010-2013)

Wikipedia lists it in terms of days of wages for a skilled laborer—wages for 120 days, assuming the coins were tetradrachms—but how does that translate into modern currency?

Assuming that the 30 pieces of silver are the tetradachmas that Thayer suggests, the total weight of the 30 pieces of silver would be 15 troy ounces, or something not too far from 1 pound of english measure.  (Not that most Europeans would need the equivalent, but its roughly 466 grams). Per this source, 1 troy ounce of silver, trading on May 20, 2013, is $21.64.  The total dollar value of 15 such ounces would thus be $324.60.  Phrased exactly according to the terms of your question (What would the value of the metal be), that is exactly your answer.

That said, it's also a completely bogus number. You really are much better off thinking of it as half a year's wages.  Here's why:

$324.60 would have an impact far in excess of the current value nearly 2000 years ago.  The things that one could do with $324.60 in today's terms is completely incomparable to what could be done back then.  To say you could maybe a small computer with that, for example, is completely irrelavant.  Even to compare that "two weeks worth of groceries for my family" is bogus, because $324.60 would fed a family for a heck of a lot longer than that.
The price of the metal discounts all sorts of other economic factors.  Today, silver is a rather nontraditional investment.  Back then, it was money.  We no longer peg the dollar to precious metal.  They did.
Pieces of silver were regularly adulterated - once monarchs learned they could shave the value of the metal in a coin, inflation became commonplace.  Even if we knew what type of coin, we don't have data as to the purity of the coin in question.
The concept of a middle class was much more of a rarity.  30 pieces of silver to the very rich was very little.  To the very poor, it was a lot.  Most moderns in the West are neither, and as such the emotional reaction to the money (which after all, really was the point for Judas) would be very different from the actual value.
Should you be able to unearth these coins, their historical value would well outstrip the actual value of the bullion.  I know where I could put my hands on a parchment that was signed in 1776.  I guarantee you that its best sale price would not be fetched by carefully removing the ink where a bunch of American white guys put their 'John Hancock''s on it and reuse it as a sheet of paper.
The time element really is significant.  The minimum wage in the United States is approximately $7.25/hr.  That means, in the United States, it would take a maximum of 45 hours to earn that much money.  As a country, the United States is sufficient rich in labor saving devices and capital to make that a reality.  In Bangladesh, the minimum wage is $0.11/hr, meaning that it is not unreasonable to assume it would take an individual 3000 hours (or nearly one and a half years working 40 hour weeks) to collect the same.  The difference between 1 standard week and more than 17 months is due to a difference in living conditions between two countries at the same time in history.  When you start doing temporal calculations, the math gets way worse.

As a result of each of these concerns, plus others not listed, Wikipedia is right to list in terms of days' wages.  Imagine, for example, what half a year's wages would mean to you (regardless of your socioeconomic status).  That struggle - choosing between money and God - was what was going on in Judas' heart.  (Well, amongst other things, at least).  To compare apples to apples, you really should be comparing your situation to his.  The best proxy I can think up is a percentage of your regular income.  Half a year's worth of my salary would certainly be tempting indeed.

Note: More on the drachma can be had at this link


Why Does Herod Say He Had Beheaded John the Baptist When He Knows He's in Prison? (Mark 6) In discussing what King Herod had heard about Jesus, in Mark 6:16-17, it says:

  But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.

If you continue reading verse 14 through verse 29, it's clear that Herod knows John is still in prison. In fact, he doesn't behead him until verses 27-28. Why would he then say he had been raised from the dead knowing he is still alive?

All I could come up with is that this sequence is not in chronological order. Are verses 14-16 the result of what happens in 16-29?

Look at the phraseology of Verse 17 :" For Herod had sent and seized John.." . In terms of English grammar, 'had sent' implies Past Perfect Tense which is used to indicate an action that is already complete at the time of the main  action which is spoken of. Here, the main action spoken of is Herod wondering whether John the Baptist had come back to life.  So, there is no duality of expression here.


When, how and why did Mary start to be called "Queen of heaven"? I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post):

What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section).
Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's Queen of heaven (antiquity)), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)?
Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place?
It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism, but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this is an example of Syncretism?

*Please note: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

Finding the very first instance of this is difficult; there are (as a severe underestimate) thousands of works by hundreds of writers who may have mentioned Mary. I'm relying strongly in this answer on the article I linked for you above, "The Queenship of Mary during the Patristic Period", which in turn relies heavily on an article by an "H. Barré" in the French journal Recherches de science religieuse. Unfortunately this article, "La Royaute de Marie pendant les neuf premiers siecles", is unavailable to me.
This article cites a poem attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, which though it does not use the specific title "Queen of Heaven" for Mary, does refer to her "heavenly throne":

Conderis in solio felix regina, superno,
i.e.
You are seated, happy queen, on your heavenly throne

The author notes that the attribution of the poem to Fortunatus is contested. He adds a reference to a homily of Archbishop John of Thessalonica (I don't see a quick reference to him on the web, but he appears to have been Archbishop of Thessalonica between 610 and 649). This homily, on the Dormition of Mary, begins (in Latin translation; I can't get at the Greek):

Admirandae et gloriosissimae et vere magnae totius mundi dominae, Matri semper virgini Salvatoris nostri et Dei Jesu Christi ...

that is,

To the admirable and most glorious, and truly the great lady of the whole world, the ever-virgin Mother of our Savior and God Jesus Christ ...

which again doesn't appear to use the exact phrase "Queen of Heaven", but "Great Lady of the Whole World" is certainly approaching the concept.
The idea of "Queen of the Universe" is fully present in a sermon on the Dormition by Saint John of Damascus, who depicts Christ saying to Mary:

Come, my Mother, to thy Son; reign with him who was poor with thee.

This being the history, the first evidence I can see of the specific title Queen of Heaven is in the Latin anthem Regina Coeli, which appears to have been composed about the 12th century (several hundred years after the above citations):

Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia!
For he whom you deserved to bear, alleluia,
Has arisen, as he said; alleluia!
Pray for us to God; alleluia!

Considering the wide range of writers who used the title "Queen" or "Great lady", and the length of time the idea seems to have been around before the use of the title, I'd be surprised if there were any opposition to its use. The idea that Mary was Queen, Lady of the Universe (kosmou despoina), and similar titles had been around for at least six centuries before this hymn, and no one had objected.
As far as the possibility of syncretism: this might be thought to be the case if there were a specific goddess (for example) whose cultus was local to the places where the title "lady" or "queen" began to be used. I don't see any evidence of such a being, though: if the poem I refer to above is correctly attributed to Fortunatus, then we need a Germanic goddess with such a name; if not, we're looking for a Greek one. I can't think of one that fits the bill in either case.


What was the difference between Ratramnus's view of the Eucharist and that of Calvin? In the First Eucharistic Controversy (ninth century), Paschasius Radbertus wrote a monograph arguing that the elements in communion were nothing less than the physical flesh and blood of Jesus.  He was widely opposed, and another theologian, Ratramnus, replied.  Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 18.IV.D) summarizes his view:

  Ratramnus opposed the realistic interpretation of the bread and wine, saying that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are present in a figure, not literally.  The spiritual presence of the body of Christ is a mystery, available only to faith.

This sounds very much like the "spiritual presence" view of the Lord's supper, advocated by John Calvin and widely held today in Reformed theology.

Based on the writings of these two theologians, what are the major similarities and differences regarding their views on the nature of the elements in the Eucharist?

Ligonier Ministries has an article about this question posted on its website, addressing the Eucharistic controversy in which Ratramnus took part and discussing its relationship with Protestantism. The most relevant section:

  The views of Ratramnus are somewhat more difficult to pin down than
  those of Radbertus. He does not advocate a simple symbolic
  memorialism, as Zwingli would do centuries later. Nor does he advocate
  anything like the later Lutheran doctrine. If anything, there are some
  similarities between the views of Ratramnus and the views John Calvin
  would later teach, but even here we must be cautious because there are
  also significant differences. Calvin, for example, would agree with
  Ratramnus when he asserts that we partake of bread and wine with the
  mouth and the body and blood of Christ by faith. But Calvin would say
  that we partake in a spiritual manner of the true body and blood of
  Christ — not what Ratramnus refers to as “spiritual flesh.”


Is "You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself" a form of antinomianism? The second great commandment, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," is often turned into "You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself." Is this a form of antinomianism? If not, how would you classify it?

I'm thinking along the lines of "I must love myself before I can love my neighbour, so I'll concentrate on loving myself; and when I feel that I love myself enough, I can start to think about loving my neighbour."

Edit:

Please note that I am not suggesting that it is improper to love one's self (in the sense of taking care of one's legitimate needs). A man who truly hates himself is of little use to anyone.

Applying cultural context can aid in understanding scripture.

Antinomianism does not appear to enter into this; a cultural disconnect is more likely.

  Antinomianism:  ... from two Greek words, anti, meaning "against"; and
  nomos, meaning "law."  Antinomianism means “against the law.”  Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey.

Reading (and then restating in different terms) the scripture as described seems to contradict the teaching that was going on, as described by John J. Pilch.

  Another custom was to sum up the Torah’s commandments in a small
  number of precepts or a summary statement. Thus King David proposed
  eleven (Ps 15), Isaiah six (33:15), Micah three (6:8), and Amos only
  one (5:4).

  In reply to the Pharisee’s question about the “greatest commandment,”
  Jesus combines two: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
  with all your soul, and with all your mind” (citing and amending Dt
  6:5). And the second of equal importance is “love your neighbor as
  yourself” (citing Lv 19:18). Jesus does not discard other
  commandments. He explicitly adds: “On these two commandments hang all
  the law and the prophets.”

Pilch has written articles, and books, about the cultural context of first century life in the Middle East (which he often refers to as Mediterranean Culture).  He presents various New Testament encounters couched in the cultural context of a given scene, interaction, or teaching.  A useful caveat on reading scripture from "A Cultural Handbook to the Bible' explains:

  The task of interpreting the Bible — which was written by and to people living in very different cultural contexts from contemporary Western society — can seem monumental. The opposite is also true: people can easily forget that studying the Bible is a type of cross-cultural encounter, instead reading their own cultural assumptions into biblical texts.

The passage you cite, rather than the variation offered, has underneath it an embedded cultural assumption of first century Mediterranean Culture, which is spelled out in Ephesians 5:29 by the Apostle Paul.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, an audience who were often not steeped in the base culture in which the New Testament narrative takes place.

In other words, anyone contemporary to Jesus who heard

  "You shall love your neighbour as yourself,"

is already making the cultural assumption spelled out later in Ephesians 5:29 (KJV).

  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Taking the teaching as Jesus presented it, and then changing it, seems to be willful misinterpretation of scripture rather than antinomianism.

  You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself."

As Jesus said (roughly) to Pilate during the interview: your words, not mine.

Put differently, the embedded assumption is that you love yourself.  It is a 20th century overwrite to throw doubt into that cultural assumption.

For fuller context on the Ephesians passage, Paul was speaking about marriage and love as a reflection of the Church as the body of Christ:

  28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

One's wife is someone outside of himself, as is one's neighbor, so the embedded assumption that one does not hate one's self (while modern secular culture seems to accept self hate as normal (perhaps?) or common(?)) the message is clear and consistent with the commandment.

Applying the modern self-hate concept is where the confusion arises; that isn't scriptural, nor a matter of the law, but rather a "loss in translation" across the cultural divide.  (And possibly scriptural distortion, depending upon how the translation from the Greek to English proceeded).


What Bible translations are accepted by Mormons? A comment to another question that I had asked said that the LDS does not accept the NIV as a correct translation.

Based on that comment it seems that they only accept King James Version (KJV) which, according to the Wikipedia article, is also known as King James Bible or Authorized Version.

The questions I would like ask are:

Is the KJV from 1611 the only translation accepted by Mormons, or
are there other translations they accept, such as perhaps NKJV?
What Bible translations do Mormons use in countries where KJV does
not exist in local language, such as Sweden?

According to a 1992 statement by the First Presidency of the Church:

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.
While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There are selections of the Bible translated by the prophet Joseph Smith, called the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), but this is not a separate translation of the KJV Bible, only corrections to some of the verses/passages. These are given in footnotes of the LDS edition of the scriptures, rather than as a separate book, because the number of changes is really quite small compared to the length of the full text of the Bible.
More information about the JST:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation
https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng


What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted? What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted:

  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
  that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live
  according to God in the spirit (KJV)

Can anyone, please, give an overview? I am especially interested in who has been understood as the "dead" in this verse.

I see two main references to the "dead" in the Bible.  The first are the physically dead, King Solomon talks about them in Ecclesiastes 9:5.  In that verse he tells us that the "dead know nothing".  This confirms what we already know, that the physically dead cannot benefit from teaching or preaching.  They are dead.

The second are the spiritually dead.  But I believe this verse is talking about the physically dead.  Why physically dead?

If you go back to Chapter 3 verse 18, you see: "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."  The verse is talking about Christs sacrifice.  If you apply that to this verse you see that there are followers of Christ that will lose their life ("judged according to men in the flesh") but be alive in the spirit.  He goes on to talk about suffering for Christ, this would include being martyred as many early Christians were.

If you look at chapter 3 and 4 as a whole you see that he is talking about turning away from an old lifestyle, living for God, and preparing for the judgement of men that will come as a result of that.  This judgement could include the loss of your life, which is still true in some parts of the world today.


When Pilate offered up Jesus or Barabbas for release, was this to the crowd for their justice or for pardon? I have limited understanding of this was a tradition each year where Pilate would release a prisoner during the Jewish Passover but did this release mean a pardon?

This was posed in my Sunday school class today and I am seeking any knowledge or understanding on this.

  But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas” (Luke 23:18, ESV)

John Shelby Spong says in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 168, that in his research, he  has been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover. He says the original crucifixion story could have been related to Yom Kippur because in this tradition, one lamb or goat was killed for our sins and one had the sins of the people symbolically transferred to him, after which he was chased away. Following this tradition, Barabbas was to be pardoned.
Historian Richard Carrier agrees with Bishop Spong that Barabbas took the role of the Yom Kippur scapegoat. His view on this is available online as part of a review he wrote for a book by Dennis R. McDonald:

[A] practice [of releasing a prisoner] could hardly have been approved by Rome, since any popular rebel leader who happened to be in custody during the festival would always escape justice.
Of course, Barabbas means "son of the father," and thus is an obvious pun on Christ himself. He also represents the violent revolutionary, as opposed to the very different kind of savior in Jesus (the real "Savior") . . . The Jews thus choose the wrong "son of the father" who represents the Old Covenant (symbolized by the rainbow, and represented by the ideal of the military messiah freeing Israel), as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9).

In the above extract, Carrier discusses the parallel passage in Mark's Gospel. New Testament scholars overwhelmingly regard this as the main source of information used by the author of Luke's Gospel, so it is equally relevant to most questions about Luke.


Martin Luther: "Therefore it is not a Christian Church either"? Martin Luther, The Large Catechism, The Apostles' Creed, Article III, paragraphs 43-45:

  43] For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in
  the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under
  the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one
  recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier,
  that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He
  has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and
  made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? 44] This,
  that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be
  preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain
  grace and be saved by our works. 45] Therefore it is not a
  Christian Church either; for where Christ is not preached, there is
  no Holy Ghost who creates, calls, and gathers the Christian Church,
  without which no one can come to Christ the Lord. 46] Let this suffice
  concerning the sum of this article. But because the parts which are
  here enumerated are not quite clear to the simple, we shall run over
  them also.

It seems that Dr. Martin Luther is denying here the fact of the Church's existence among the Roman Catholic Church of his time. I've learned here that while claiming that there were a lot of non-Christians in the Roman Catholic Church of his time, he still didn't consider all the clerics of the Roman Catholic Church as surely not the Church, however, these words that I just read in his Large Catechism (see the quotation above) seem to say the opposite. Can anyone, please, clarify this?

Luther doesn't deny the existence of true Christians, throughout history, within the church controlled by the popes. For instance he writes:

  “Do you not think that God was able to preserve His own under the papacy even though the priests and monks have been the devil's teachers in Christendom and have gone to hell? Very many children and young people have died in Christ. For Christ, even under the Antichrist, has with might preserved Baptism, the bare text of the Gospel in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, so as to preserve very many of His Christians and thus His church”. (from his letter on translating and on the intercession of the saints 1530)

The quote you give from his Large Catechism should be understood with reference only to those who were taken in and deceived by Roman Catholic teaching. Children who heard the text of the Gospel could be saved through believing it without realising that their church was corrupting the meaning. Likewise older people if they placed their trust in Christ alone could be saved. Luther approved of the practice within the Roman church of a crucifix being placed before the eyes of dying people because it brought to their attention the suffering and death of Christ who alone, apart from works, could save them.

To Luther the true Church is invisible because it's composed only of those with true faith in their hearts, and no one can see another's faith. So within the visible Roman Catholic church you basically had (and have) two different entities: the false church which followed the teaching of the popes, and the true Church which followed the teaching of Christ. Of course this latter was obviously in a weakened state because it had failed to recognise the heretical nature of the Papacy, but it was still part of the one true Church that existed throughout the world wherever faith in Christ was found.

With regards to the Roman Catholic clergy of Luther's day it appears he didn't think any of them were true Christian teachers. Yes in previous centuries he recognised some of the clergy as being true Christians like Augustine and Ambrose but that's going back hundreds of years before the establishment of the Papacy and the corruption in doctrine which afterwards took place. Luther was confident that if Augustine had been alive when he (Luther) was, that he (Augustine) would have joined him in separating from the Roman Catholic church.


Is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral present in Luther or in any other pre-Wesley theologians, Protestant or Catholic? The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, also known as the Methodist Quadrilateral, is a method of theological reflection and of arriving at theological conclusions based on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

According to the Wikipedia article linked above, it is attributed to John Wesley, founder of Methodism, though the term "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral" was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler.

My question:

Is the substance of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (drawing theological conclusions based on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience) present in Martin Luther's writings, or in any other pre-Wesley theologians in the Western Christian tradition, Protestant or Catholic?

I am especially looking for clear or fairly clear formulations of this four-point system, though I would also be interested in more implicit appearances of this method in pre-Wesley Protestant or Catholic theologians.

I don't know of anyone who made this formulation explicit. One example of where all four are present is in the Confessions of Augustine:

Scripture: Confessions quotes from scripture extensively.
Reason: Augustine describes at length the importance of Cicero and Plato in his conversion, and how even there he saw God's light through their reason.
Experience: the Confessions takes several examples from Augustine's own experience was important in his conversion and later theological work and conclusions. He meditates (for a few examples) on stealing a pear just because he felt like it, his experience as a Manichaean, his conversion experience, and dealing with death of loved ones.
Tradition: One sees the importance of Ambrose and Augustine's mother Monica in both his conversion and his ongoing contemplation of the Faith.


Does Roman Catholicism teach that appearances of *Santo Nino De Atocha* have some particular meaning? Last night my elderly father sat up in bed, in the middle of the night, and he saw an image of Santo Nino De Atocha standing at the foot of his bed.

My father is very religious.  He believes all images have a meaning when they appear to an individual.  Thus we are wondering what it means for this saint to appear to you, according to Roman Catholicism:

Is it a bad sign to see him?
Is it a warning of something to come?

Does Roman Catholicism teach that appearances of Santo Nino De Atocha have some particular meaning?

Ultimately no one can truly say why the Santo Nino De Atocha, appears to someone. But that said particular circumstances of an individual surrounding may shed some light on a possible reason.

It seems that the saintly apparition of the Holy Infant of Atocha should be in some way a consolation of sorts, possibly only known to the individual.

Apparitions of the Saints are not uncommon in the history of the Catholic Church. The Holy Infant of Atocha seems to be no exception.

El Niño de Atocha seems to appear to people in need. What that need is can be very diverse or when danger is physically present as when the faithful made perilous pilgrimages:

  He (Holy Infant of Atocha) would especially appear to them when they found themselves in dangerous situations, often pointing to them the safe route to take to avoid any danger. Many times, He would accompany them on their journey. The descriptions of Him were always the same: He had a pilgrim’s dress, a hat with a plume and a cape about His Shoulders. In His left Hand, He held a pilgrim’s staff with a gourd of water attached. - The Story of the Holy Infant of Atocha

On other occasions, he would heal them of some infimity:

  In Mexico city, 1996, a girl went to an eye clinic for grave eye problems. The Holy Infant of Atocha appeared to her when she was 17, assuring her that she would not feel any pain, that she would be healed, which happened to the amazement of the doctors there. There are parishes and shrines named after Him both in Mexico and in the United States, as well as Spain. Pilgrimages to Spain to honor Him are still common as are those to Mexico. - The Story of the Holy Infant of Atocha

Santo Nino de Atocha, save our families!

Whatever the situation may be the Santo Nino De Atocha appearing to someone is a heavenly sign that some sort of grace has been accorded to an individual or his family.


Which heresy did Spurgeon accuse Pusey of? I have been asked to explain what Charles Spurgeon meant when he said "Puseyism" was heretical.  Apparently, Charles Spurgeon brought this up in his sermons.

I have done some initial research and found out that Edward Pusey was Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. He was one of the main promoters of the Oxford Movement.

What I can't find is any reliable source/link to any sermon given by Charles Spurgeon where he describes "Puseyism" as heretical. I don't have much time in which to respond and so I would be grateful for any insights/links/articles that shed light on what Charles Spurgeon thought about "Puseyism".

The following quotes show that Spurgeon accused Pusey (and his followers) of

1. Attempting to Re-unite Anglicanism with Catholicism

  Nowadays Dr. Pusey dreams that the Anglican and the Russian Church may be united, and then perhaps the Romish may chime in—and so once more all may be one. A mere dream! A mere chimera of a kindly but whimsical brain! If it should ever come to be a reality it would prove to be an upas tree at the roots of which every honest man must at once lay his axe. But what did the Savior mean, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me"?

Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 12

2. Idolatry

  We
  spoke of idolatry as being buried at Athens and consigned to its tomb at Rome, but it lives in the Puseyism of the present hour; men are naturally idolaters, and it is nothing but idolatry which nowadays, in the
  toyshops of the Tractarians is polluting the simplicity of our worship by thrusting their childish symbols
  and emblems before the sublime truth that God is to be worshipped in spirit, and only to be approached
  through the atoning sacrifice of His only-begotten Son.

The Heart - A Den of Evil


When did Christianity originate? How long has Christianity been around? Not how or why -- just when did it start:

As a religion?
As a name?

1. Christianity as a religion

The central point of the whole Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

  1 Corinthians 15:19-20 (ESV)
   19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
  20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This happened ~30 AD, that is 33 years after Jesus's birth, the exact year of which isn't certain.

But the central point is not the same as the beginning. Hebrews 11 tells us that the patriarchs of the Old Testament era were already waiting for Christ, living in the hope of the promise.

  Hebrews 11:24-26 (ESV)
   24By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

The Old Testament era was building up for the coming of Christ (John 1:1-18, Romans 5). When Adam and Eve originally rebelled against God, the plan to save humankind began. What we call Christianity is really that plan. Adam, the first man, already is a symbol of Christ:

  Romans 5:14-15 (ESV) [emphasis mine]
   14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
  15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

It makes sense to say that Christianity began at the Resurrection, ~30 AD, but it makes even more sense that Christianity began at the Fall of man.

2. Christianity as a name

The first mention of Christians was of the group of believers in Antioch:

  Acts 11:25-26 (ESV)
   25So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

This was obviously after Jesus's resurrection, but also during the reign of king Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1 mentions this). From Herod Agrippa's period of reign we know this was probably between 41-44 AD.


Does the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have a policy regarding admitting members who do not accept its doctrines? According to the PCA's Book of Church Order and any other relevant material, should members wishing to join a Reformed church (PCA) be required to adopt its doctrines or should they be allowed to join if they do not accept the doctrines? On what doctrinal issues would somebody be denied membership, and on which might variance be allowed?

The Presbyterian Churches of America have in their church order a section on membership. This does not require the members to adopt all the doctrines of the church, but it does require a credible profession of faith in Christ.

CHAPTER 6
Church Members
6-1. The children of believers are, through the
covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church.
Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight,
instruction and government of the church, with a view to their
embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the
covenant.
6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession
of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the
Session to the Lord's Table. (See BCO 46-4 for associate members).
6-3. All baptized persons are entitled to the watchful care,
instruction and government of the church, even though they are adults
and have made no profession of their faith in Christ.
6-4. Those only
who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and
admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table, are entitled to all the
rights and privileges of the church. (See BCO 57-4 and 58-4)

To clarify on "a profession of faith in Christ", the church order states that the following questions must be agreed upon by the potential member to constitute a profession of faith in Christ:

Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His
sovereign mercy?
Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for
salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the
followers of Christ?
Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

In addition, to become a communicant member (that is, to participate in the Lord's Supper), the church order does stipulate that:

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

This would suggest that if the potential member has no knowledge of the doctrines of the church, then they would be ignorant and thus not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, also excluding them from church membership.
There is also the matter of what constitutes an offence worthy of church discipline. The church order states the following:

29-1. An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything
in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in
Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith
and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly,
together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship
are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard
expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith
and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court
as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be
proved to be such from Scripture.

This suggests to me that, if a person were to become a member of the church who did not hold to the doctrines maintained to be true by the confessions of the church, they would immediately be subject to church discipline as offending through false doctrine.
It is possible that this is not typically exercised in this way by many/most PCA church sessions. For your particular case I would ask the session of your church what they recommend.


Alternative Names for Eastertide? So I just asked the question why Pentecost is called Pentecost before Pentecost in the Eastern Church. And it got me thinking, what are alternative names for Eastertide?

I am aware of Eastertide, Easter Time and Season, Paschaltide, Paschal Time and Season

Alternative Names for Eastertide?

  Eastertide (also called the Easter Season as well as Easter Time) or Paschaltide (also called the Paschal Season as well as Paschal Time) is a festal season in the liturgical year of Christianity that focuses on celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Eastern Orthodox Church calls Eastertide: Pentecost.

The Catholic Maronite Church uses the term Season of Resurrection for Eastertide.

  Eastertide is the period of 50 days, spanning from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday

Occasionally one see the Roman Rite employing this term for Eastertide also.

  Perhaps nothing captures the spirit of Easter more than the “Exultet,” the great Easter Proclamation composed about the fifth century and sung on Holy Saturday night in Catholic churches across 15 centuries.

  The Exultet, an ecstatic hymn of praise of the risen Christ, begins with these powerful words: “Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven, exult, let angel ministers of God exult, let the trumpet of heaven sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph! Be glad, let earth, as glory floods her, ablaze with light from her eternal King, let all corners of the earth be glad, knowing an end to gloom and darkness.”

  The stirring words of this proclamation spill over into the liturgy of the Easter season as we call to mind and celebrate the resurrection of Christ from the dead. But Easter is not simply poetry, it is one of the greatest events of history (along with the creation of the world and the Incarnation). - The Easter Proclamation and the Resurrection Season

To a lesser degree Easter is expressed by some as the Season of Hope:

  Easter is a Season of Hope


Are the gospels comparable(equal) to contemporary works of historians? Are the gospels (and especially claims on the identity of Jesus in the Gospels) comparable(equal) to contemporary works of contemporary historians like Tacitus and Josephus, in terms of objectivity( claims are not too far reaching conclusions), historical accuracy(telling only what really happened) and quality of research( time spent on writing work, number of members in this team that makes up the work in question) they did? In other words can I trust on the claims of identity of Jesus and historicity of the events? Can you give some reasons why gospels are equal with the documents of those historians?
For example in this author claims that quote;

  It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Ultimately, everybody has an agenda.

Remember that "history" in the modern almost journalistic sense of the word was not really even a concept at this time.  The point was not to convince "scholars" but regular people.

So, who then are the contenders as "historians?"

Tactitus gave us the first mention of the Christians, and provides external evidence of Pontius Pilate as the procurator of Palestine who had Jesus executed.  His agenda in writing, however, was mostly to vilify Nero, blaming him for the destruction of Rome in 64 AD.  Nero, of course, had alrady blamed the Christians - so Tactitus' agenda would be to exculpate the original scapegoats.  By being non-Christian himself, however, he answers modern charges of being too interested a party.
Flavius Josephus also mentioned the Christians, but again, really only in the course of his agenda.  Josephus was a nothing more than a traitor to his own Jewish cause.  Although he fought with the Jews, when he was caught, he turned traitor. Eventually becoming a Roman citizen, he wrote a story about the war that modern historians find to be questionable in some places - but again, because of his agenda.  In passing, however, he too mentions the Christians, but his agenda isn't really focused on them.
The Gospel writers were all eyewitnesses to Jesus.  Did they have an agenda? Sure!  The saw a dead man become not a dead man.  They heard his message, and their lives were transformed by it.  Of course they are biased!  But, and this is a big but, they had the most most information about Jesus.  Their agenda is to make Jesus known, and they all died really horrible deaths to do that.  By modern standards of 'history,' their primary accounts would be discounted because they are too close to it.

Mark (who studied Peter) had probably written down his Gospel by 68 AD (before the Temple was destroyed), Luke (who studied under Paul) by the early 70s, and Matthew, who was an eyewitness and disciple by the mid 70s.  John's Gospel may have been the last - written at the latest, by around 95 AD.  Each of these was an eyewitness.
Later Christian "historians" like Papias, Iraneus, and Tertullian were all Christian bishops who based their histories on the Gospels' record.  Papias is the earliest of the three, writing in the early 100s.  Tertullian lived from about 160 - 225, and Iraneus (Bishop of Lyon) lived about the same time, dying in 202.  Each of these men (and Eusbeius, who should also be in the category as well) lived well after the events of the New Testament.  These men saw the Gospels as primary accounts, and wrote their own works as secondary ones.

Later historians, using many sources - not just the Gospels - compiled their accounts in later centuries.  They never claimed to be eyewitnesses.  But, they also never claimed the four canonical Gospels were fundamentally more "accurate" than any of the other sources.  Canonization wasn't even really discussed until Iranaeus - and Iraneus was the one saying that these four canonical Gospels were the best sources he found.

Even today, a primary account of an event that transforms a person is going to be biased.  Ask a New Yorker about 9/11, and there will be a bias.  Ask a Palestinian, or a member of Al Qaeda, and it will be equally biased.  Indeed, I would argue that every account will be told from a certain perspective.  Was Mohammed Atta a terrorist? a common criminal? or a martyr for Muslim cause?  There is no way to be neutral, nor is there any need to be.

The point, then, is not to ask "who to trust," since none of these accounts directly conflict.  The only difference is in the fullness of the information (hint: the Gospel writers tell you a heck of a lot more about Jesus), and the agenda.  To ask, "Are Tacitus and Josephus more 'unbiased'?" is thus still a flawed question, because in the end, every account has a bias.  The question is, are the biases explicit, and do they interfere?  Neither Tacitus nor Josephus really have much bearing at all on this.

And the Gospel writers? Of course they are biased.  That's the point. They were transformed! They had a story to tell.  The only question is, do you believe their stories?  I know that my life has been transformed in the same way by the same man who died and then came back.  Personally that is the kind of evidence I need.


Did any Jesuit opponents of early Jansenism argue that Augustine was wrong on any points? Cornelius Jansen is known as the intellectual father of Jansenism, a movement not unlike Calvinism in a few respects, like its emphasis on original sin and predestination.  Jansen's book, Augustinus (published 1640), focuses on the works of Augustine to argue for these doctrines.

Opponents to Jansenism didn't waste any time; Wikipedia indicates that Jesuits "designated" Nicolas Caussin and François Pinthereau to write anti-Jansenist works in the 1640s.  By the following decade, the movement had been condemned by the Pope.

Of course, Augustine was and is a highly regarded Christian theologian, though the Catholic church today recognizes that he was sometimes mistaken.  But I'd like to know if the anti-Jansenists were willing to make that admission, or if they focused their attack solely on Jansen's arguments.  So my question is:

Did the anti-Jansenist writings published before the papal condemnation ever directly say that Augustine was wrong on a particular point, or did they exclusively argue that Jansen and his followers had misused or misinterpreted Augustine?

On the contrary, the detractors of Jansen argued that the doctrine of the Augustinus [or, what they said it was] wasn’t the one of St Augustine. Two examples of it in:

Les Véritables sentimens de saint Augustin et de l'Église, touchant la grâce by Claude Morel (1650)
[Translation: The true sentiments of St Augustine and of the Church about the grace]
Les sentimens de saint Augustin sur la grace opposez a ceux de Jansenius, by the oratorian Jean Le Porcq (1700)
[Translation: The sentiments of St Augustine about the grace, opposed to the one of Jansen]

The titles of those books are quite clear, and if you are unsure, just consider the summary of the first one, e.g.:

  Chap. III: Éclaircissment de quelques passages de S. Augustin dont abusent ceux qui veulent lui faire dire contre sa pensée que Jésus-Christ n’est pas mort pour tous les hommes.

Finally an other quotation from the Refutation des critiques de Monsieur Bayle sur Saint Augustin (1782), by the jesuit Charles Merlin:

  L’Augustin de Jansenius n’est qu’un centon composé de plusieurs textes de Saint Augustin pris à contre-sens.

  Translation: The Augustine of Jansenius isn’t anything else than a mingle-mangle of Saint Augustine’s texts in the wrong sense.


Do Christians have "secret" (handshakes for example) ways of knowing who other Christians were? Did Christians ever come up with "secret" ways of knowing who other Christians were? I don't mean exactly a handshake, because I get that sometimes people don't (or can't) shake hands. Seems like it might be a bit pointless, like a joke you have with friends or something. But did they?

The Sator square was likely used to secretly advertise a house as Christian to other Christians in the first century.


What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons? In What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? we have explored the biblical basis for the doctrine that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

However, what is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that:

the Father and the Son are different persons;
the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons; and
the Holy Spirit and the Father are different persons?

In this answer, my question is addressed but not answered; other answers also attempt to explain how the three persons are one, instead of how the three persons are distinct.

General references to there being separate personages in the Godhead.
Luke 3:21-22 (Matthew 3:13-17 similar story/wording)

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 14:16,26,28 (I=Jesus)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 15:26 (I=Jesus)

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Acts 7:55-56

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

the Father is not the Son

Matthew 26:39,42 (he=Jesus) (Luke 22:42 same story/similiar wording)

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

John 17:6-23 - won't quote here since it's long, but it is Jesus praying to the Father
John 20:17

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 8:17-18

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mark 13:32

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

the Son is not the Holy Spirit

John 16:7 (I=Jesus)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

the Holy Spirit is not the Father

See John 15:26 (above)


What is the origin of the Doctrine of Trinity? My understanding is that "Trinity" is not is not used in the Christian Bible to define the three hypostases: God, Christ, and Holy Spirit.  What then is the historical origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Put another way, when and from whom did the word "Trinity" come about in relation to the hypostases?  Is there a reason "Trinity" appears in the Christian lexicon rather than referring to the specific hypostasis?

The Trinity described:
The Athanasian Creed, formulated a few hundred years after the death of Jesus, defined the Trinity this way: “The Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.”
Did Jesus start the Trinity?
Many would say that it's origin started with Jesus Christ, however that would conflict what the bible say even about his "own" origin (creation) about him being equal:

Colossians 1:13-15
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:

Was the Origin of the Trinity in the bible?
No where in the scriptures does it make mention of Trinity.
In its 1999 issue on the Trinity, The Living Pulpit observed: “Sometimes, it seems that everyone assumes that the doctrine of the trinity is standard Christian theological fare,” but it added that it is not “a biblical idea.”
“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.
Where then could the Origin of the Trinity come from?
In his book The Church of the First Three Centuries, Dr. Alvan Lamson states that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”
Who were these “Platonizing Fathers”? They were apostate clerics who were infatuated with the teachings of pagan Greek philosopher Plato.
The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
History shows that the ancient civilizations and cultures that believed in a Triad god or gods were: Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome which all were conquering nations, one after another, could have carried their beliefs into Christianity after Jesus' death - during the time of the Romans and of which historically were Pagans.


Into how many languages has the Book of Mormon been translated? I understand that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the most translated book in the world.  It seems that giving the Word of God to all the world is considered part of the Great Commission.

Since the LDS church holds the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, just like the Bible, what is the current total number of languages into which it has been translated.  I would also be interested in statistics for the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.

Currently, 150 million+ copies in any of 82 languages. (from the Mormon Newsroom)

  Since it was first published in English in 1830, the Book of Mormon
  has been fully translated into 82 languages, and printed copies have
  totaled more than 150 million.

I'll add a note that I've seen at least a dozen incomplete translations ("Selections from the Book of Mormon") into more obscure languages. Interestingly, I have also met people who, for existing translations, are assisting in making better translations for difficult languages like Farsi where current translations are lacking.

This page on the LDS Store has 37 languages in the list for the Triple Combination, which includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

As a side, here's an interesting article about the publishing of the Book of Mormon.


Is Christianity continuing to grow worldwide? Is there continuing growth in Christianity around the world or has it stalled/declined?  I'm interested in worldwide stats rather than for individual countries.

The numbers appear to be inconclusive, at least according to this site.

It appears the number of Christians is growing, but in terms of percentage of population, some studies show a slight growth, while others show a slight decline.  Of course the various studies are over different time periods, so it's impossible, with the given data, to draw any conclusive results.

Wikipedia estimates the 2007 growth rate of Christianity at 1.38%, which appears to be within the range of the various studies cited above.


What is the Evangelical view on tithing? Do Evangelical (by which I mean, taking the Bible as the ultimate earthly source of authority) Christians believe giving 10% of your income is a law for Christians?

Note: this question is related to Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church? After asking that question, a moderator said it was too broad and made it specifically about the early church (which I agreed with). This question is intended to be a more specific version of what I really want to ask. See that question for more details.

This is at least one modern evangelical view...

It is true that the New Testament really does not prescribe tithing, that is, giving 10% of your income.  It does, however, prescribe giving:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or
  under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  2 Corinthians 9:7

The church at Phillip specifically financially supported the ministry of Paul:

  Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.  Philippians 4:16

Another aspect is to consider that, as believers, we understand that everything we have comes from God, so we must honor God with 100% of our income, time, talents, and possessions--not just 10% of our income.

So, since there is a prescription to give, but not specific amount prescribed, it is common to use the tithe (10%) as a great pattern to follow.

So, in most biblically oriented circles that I've been involved with, the tithe is a great benchmark.  That means we are free to give whatever amount and should cheerfully give generously to the work of Christ all over the world.  Generosity may mean 5% for some, but others may be able to comfortably give 15%-20%.

Indeed, for people with very high income levels, 10% could be considered hardly generous.  The point is to be as generous as we can and to enjoy the pleasure of giving.  My personal hope is to continue increasing my percentage as my income grows.

It really is more blessed to give than to receive, and this is true in many different ways.


When did Jesus assume human nature? Did Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, only assume impersonal (anhypostatic) human nature (body and soul), during incarnation, in which he was born of Mary? Or, did he already have human soul beforehand (possibly since eternity or after creation), and only assume human body during incarnation?

I believe the former is the biblical position. However, recently I heard the latter idea discussed in my circle.

I would like some rebuttal/support from the perspective of Protestant theology or early church councils.

Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your question. You seem to describe two scenarios or possibilities.

  Scenario 1: Jesus assumed an impersonal, anhypostatic HUMAN NATURE in the incarnation (which nature you define as "body and soul").

  Scenario 2: Jesus possessed a human soul prior to the incarnation which was united with a human body in the incarnation.

My first question, then, is,

What is an impersonal, anhypostatic human nature?.

In theological terms, the hypostatic union is defined as the indivisible joining of human and divine in one person. Jesus Christ was in essence both human and divine. Perhaps I am overstating the case when I say that in Jesus Christ, where the divine ended and the human began, or where the human ended and the human began, is difficult if not impossible to say.

By the very nature of the incarnation, I suggest that Jesus could never have possessed a anhypostatic human nature. When Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, the Holy Spirit of God, not a human father, caused her to conceive. Mary's human egg was united in an asexual way with the very seed of God, resulting in the only pregnancy of its kind, ever.

As I see it, the distinctive aspect of human nature is the union of the corporeal with the incorporeal. Jesus, prior to his incarnation did not possess corporeality. He was, as was his Father, pure spirit. As pure spirit, Jesus did not need a soul to be self-aware. When he assumed flesh, however, the "soulish" part of his being came from Mary's contribution to the conception.

In other words, I believe that Jesus did not assume human nature, comprised of body and soul, until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Prior to conception, Jesus was the eternally begotten Son of the Father, the second person of the Trinity, who dwelt in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18).

My second question is,

Why and in what way do you use the term "soul" twice?

The first time you use "soul" you define human nature as "body and soul." The second time you use "soul" you describe Jesus as possessing a human soul prior to the incarnation. Can a soul exist without first having a body? I agree with you that human nature can be described as the union of soul and body, incorporeal with corporeal. Soul is--perhaps oversimplifying here--self- awareness, or identity. Spirit, on the other hand, is God-awareness, which as we know can be suppressed in ungodliness and unrighteousness (see Romans 1:18-32).

So again I ask, "Can a soul exist without first having a body?" I think not.

What follows, then, is my tentative answer to your question as I have interpreted it.

A key passage (if not the key passage) supporting the view that Jesus did not possess a human soul prior to the incarnation is Philippians Chapter 2, which reads in part:

  5 have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,

  6 who though he existed in the form of God

  did not regard equality with God

  as something to be grasped,

  7 [line a:] but emptied himself

  [line b:] by taking on the form of a slave,

  [line c:] by looking like other men, [Grk "by coming in the likeness of people"]

  [line d:] and by sharing in human nature.

  8 He humbled himself,

  by becoming obedient to the point of death

  – even death on a cross!" (NET)

The NET notes make an interesting comment regarding the four lines of verse 7:

  The expression the likeness of men [in line c] is similar to Paul's wording in Romans 8:3 ("in the likeness of sinful flesh"). The same word likeness is used . . . [both here and there]. It implies there is a form that does not necessarily conform to reality. In Romans 8:3, the meaning is Christ looked like sinful humanity. Here the meaning is similar. Jesus looked like other men (note anqrwpoi), but was in fact different from them in that he did not have a sinful nature.

  This last line of v. 7 (line d) stands in tension with the previous line, line c (“by looking like other men”). Both lines have a word indicating form or likeness. Line c, as noted above, implies that Christ only appeared to be like other people. Line d, however, uses a different term that implies a correspondence between form and reality. Further, line c uses the plural “men” while line d uses the singular “man.” The theological point being made is that Christ looked just like other men, but he was not like other men (in that he was not sinful), though he was fully human.[my emphasis]

From Philippians Chapter 2, then, we see that Christ emptied himself in order to take on something else; namely, the likeness of a human being. Now by "emptying himself" Paul does not mean Jesus gave up his deity. One of the best expressions I've come across which expresses what Christ did in becoming a man is that he veiled his deity with flesh.

In other words, Jesus appeared like any other man, but in reality he was the God-man. The rights, privileges, and prerogatives of deity he veiled in the normal course of events. However, when given permission, so to speak, from his Father, he would display or demonstrate that divinity in signs and miracles such as turning ordinary water into extraordinary wine, calming the wind and the waves by fiat, or raising people from the dead.

Changing gears for a moment, In Exodus Chapter 21 and Deuteronomy Chapter 15, we read about a strange custom which was enacted (by God's command) whenever the situation called for it. These passages shed much needed light on the great stoop Jesus took to be born of a woman. From Exodus 21:

  Laws about Slaves

  When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for six years; then in the seventh he is to leave as a free man without paying anything. If he arrives alone, he is to leave alone; if he arrives with a wife, his wife is to leave with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children belong to her master, and the man must leave alone.
  But if the slave declares: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man,’ his master is to bring him to the judges and then bring him to the door or doorpost. His master must pierce his ear with an awl, and he will serve his master for life (vv.2-6).

From Deuteronomy :

  If your fellow Hebrew, a man or woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, you must set him free in the seventh year. . . . But if your slave says to you, ‘I don’t want to leave you,’ because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you, take an awl and pierce through his ear into the door, and he will become your slave for life (vv.12-17, excerpts).

The application of these passages to Jesus's incarnation become clearer when we bring other verses to bear on them. From Psalm 40 (NASB):

  Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;

  My ears You have opened [or dug, possibly pierced];

  Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

  Then I said, “Behold, I come;

  In the scroll of the book it is written of me.

  I delight to do Your will, O my God;

  Your Law is within my heart.”

And then from Hebrews 10:

  So when he came into the world, he said,

  'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.
  Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in.
  Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’

  When he says above, 'Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them' (which are offered according to the law), then he says, 'Here I am: I have come to do your will.' He does away with the first to establish the second.

I suggest that the salient factors drawn from each of the above passages provide us with an analogy which lays Christ's incarnation side by side with an ancient Hebrew custom (obviously sanctioned by God through Moses). In analogical fashion, then,

  The master is analogous to God the Father
  The slave is analogous to Jesus who came into the world not to be served, but to serve and ultimately to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
  The digging/piercing/opening of the slave's ear is analogous to Jesus's
  flesh-and-blood body and his willingness to offer up that body as a once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27 and 9:12). In other words, the writer of Hebrews used the slave's ear in synecdochical fashion: the part of the slave's body--his ear, for the whole of Christ's body in his incarnation and ultimate crucifixion.
  The master, the slave, the slave's wife, and the children born to the slave's wife are analogous the Father, the Son, and the Bride of Christ (i.e., the church, those who by virtue of having received and believed in Jesus have been given the right to be called the children of God, according to John 1:12-13).
  The very notion of slavery is analogous to Jesus's subservience to his Father and to Jesus's determination to accomplish that will at the cost of his own life (compare the above passage from Hebrews to the words of Jesus in John 8:29 and 17:4).
  The love which the slave had for his master, for his own wife, and for his own children is analogous both to the love relationship between the Father and Son (John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31), and to the love demonstrated by the Son when he died for a world of lost sinners (Romans 5:8)
  The piercing of the slave's ear with an awl is analogous to Jesus's willingness to serve his Father to the point of shedding blood and then bearing the scars to prove it (see John 20:24-29).

The distinctiveness of "human nature," as opposed to the "divine nature," is the union of both the corporeal and incorporeal in one person. "God," on the other hand, "is spirit," Jesus said (John 4:24). Jesus himself is also fully God, however, and prior to his incarnation he is described as "the only begotten of God who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18).

In other words, prior to "becoming flesh and dwelling among us" (John 1:14), Jesus too was pure spirit, as was (and ever will be) the Father. Discounting "theophanies" or "Christophanies" for the time being (i.e., pre-incarnate appearances of Christ as the "Angel of the LORD") as only temporary manifestations of a divine personage in a human body (e.g., Genesis 16:13; Judges 6:21, 22; 6:11, 14; 13:3, 18, 20, 22; Zechariah 12:8; and 2 Kings 19:35), I feel confident in saying that Jesus did not begin to perform his unique role as the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) until he was conceived and then born of the virgin Mary.

Paul refers to Jesus as "the second man . . . from heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47). By this he does not mean Jesus came to earth from heaven as a man; rather, he means that Jesus came to earth as a "life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45) in the form of a man, who after he was born "grew in stature and in wisdom, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

In conclusion, the sacrificial system as it was enacted in the history of the Hebrews served its purpose until the ultimate and last sacrifice came on the scene in the person of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). What the OT sacrifices could never do, Jesus did with the sacrifice of himself.

Throughout the OT, however, God made clear that more important than the literal sacrifice of an animal is something internal to the person making the sacrifice; namely, a broken and contrite spirit, heart-felt repentance, and above all, delight in obeying God and doing his will (see 1 Samuel 15:32-33; cf. Psalm 40:6-8).

What was true then is still true now:

  For You do not delight in sacrifice,

  otherwise I would give it;

  You are not pleased with

  burnt offering.

  The sacrifices of God are a

  broken spirit;

  A broken and a contrite heart,

  O God, You will not despise.

Jesus gave his all for us. Can we do any less?


Are Iraqi Chaldean (Suraye) related to the Chaldean mentioned in old testament? I am looking for a reliable resource about the history of the christian Chaldean in Iraq and where the name "Suraya" come from.

Bruce Feiler says, in Where God Was Born, page 199-200, the Chaldeans of the Old Testament were an Arabic tribe that migrated northward into central Mesopotamia in about the ninth century BCE and eventually seized control of the kingdom, forming what became known as the neo-Babylonian Empire.

Wikipedia says the modern Chaldean Catholics are in fact Assyrians, originally from northern Iraq, northeast Syria, northwest Iran and southeast Turkey, an area that does not overlap well with the more southern homeland of the Old Testament Chaldeans.  Rome initially named the new diocese, formed by those Assyrians who broke from The Assyrian Church of the East and entered communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Assyria and Mosul.  Some 128 years later, in 1681, this was changed to The Chaldean Catholic Church, despite none of its adherents having hitherto used the name 'Chaldean' to describe themselves or their church.

In conclusion, the 'Iraqi Chaldeans' are not ethnically related to the ancient Chaldean people. The name 'Chaldeans' was chosen by the Catholic Church in Rome, although there was no precedent to support this usage.