How does Matthew 25:31-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats") reconcile with salvation by faith? In Matthew 25:31-46 (a passage subtitled "The Sheep and the Goats" in the NIV), Jesus seems to be drawing a direct relationship between good works and salvation.
Matthew 25:31-46 NIV:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I read this passage to say that those people who cared for those in need will have eternal life; those people who did not will have eternal punishment.
How does this passage reconcile with other passages in the New Testament that imply or directly state that salvation is through faith in Jesus (e.g. Luke 23:40-43 -- the thief on the cross; Ephesians 2:8-9 -- salvation through faith, not works)?

Judged according to what they had done, echos...

Have a look at any of the other verses that talk about the day of Judgement, they all speak about what a person did in the flesh. They all mention "works" in some fashion.

  Revelation 20:11-13

  11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth
  and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I
  saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books
  were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The
  dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the
  books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades
  gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged
  according to what he had done.

  Romans 2:5-11

  5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his
  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person
  according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in
  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal
  life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth
  and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be
  trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for
  the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for
  everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11
  For God does not show favoritism.

  2 Corinthians 5:10

  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each
  one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body,
  whether good or bad.

Not by Faith alone?

The only place in the Bible that "faith alone" is mentioned, is here.

  James 2:24 NIV

  You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not
  by faith alone.

The command to love.

Mathew 25 is showing us that Jesus is literally judging people based upon whether or not they showed true love to one another. This is the purpose to life as the Bible defines it: That we are the first of all creation to bear a new kind of fruit, and that fruit is love.

  1 John 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands.

  John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The
  one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them
  and show myself to them.”

  John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

  Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no
  commandment greater than these.”

  1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
  Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

  1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands
  are not burdensome,

  2 John 1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
  have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

  Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love
  your neighbor as yourself.”

  Daniel 9:4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “Lord, the
  great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who
  love him and keep his commandments,

  Nehemiah 1:5 Then I said: “LORD, the God of heaven, the great and
  awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him
  and keep his commandments,

  Deuteronomy 5:10 but showing love to a thousand generations of
  those who love me and keep my commandments.

Mans rejection of God

Understand man kind. THEY HATE GOD, but more then hating God, THEY HATE EACH OTHER.

  Romans 1:29-30 (NIV)

  29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed
  and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
  malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent,
  arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey
  their parents;

Eighty percent of Americans consider themselves to be saved Christians, through faith in Christ. However Jesus said that there is a way that seems right to a man that leads to death. There is a wide road and a wide gate that leads to hell and many follow it.

But the road that leads to life is small and the gate is small and few find it.

By saying FAITH ALONE a person is basically telling you that they have no responsibility to care for anybody else. Why would they? They've already been saved, "so let Jesus worry about doing the work through you and you can go about living  your sinful, wicked ways." This is plain WRONG.

Study for yourself Faith + Love and you will find the path that Jesus is pointing to over and over again. IF you have not learned to love people, then you do not know who God is.

We know we have come to know God, IF...

  1 John 2

  3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4
  Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a
  liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his
  word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we
  know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus
  did.


Should one avoid fasting during Easter? Tomorrow is the first Friday in Easter and in the Catholic Church Fridays are days of penance.  If a person usually does something small, like not continuously munch on things while at his desk, in Ordinary time and during Lent,  is that person permitted (or obligated) to not do those things during Easter?

I know it's one of those things that has to be up to one's conscience, but would a well formed conscience do well to rejoice during the season of Easter rather than continue the same routine they carry during other seasons?

In the Roman Catholic Church, the first eight days of the Easter Season make up the Octave of Easter and are celebrated as Solemnities of the Lord according to General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar.

As each of those days is a Feast of the first order, fasting is clearly inappropriate.

Indeed, because The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one "great Sunday," (ibid) it may be inappropriate to fast throughout the Easter season. St Augustine said of Sundays, "Fasting is set aside and prayers are said standing, as a sign of the Resurrection, which is also why the Alleluia is sung on every Sunday". (Ep. 55, 28: CSEL 342, 202)


Why do some Bible Translations omit John 7:53-8:11? When I tried to look at the verses quoted in this question Ihttp://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5903/what-did-jesus-write-on-the-ground/
I found that in the New World  Translation of the Holy Scriptures  John 7 ends at verse 52 and John 8 starts with verse 12 so the whole story about Jesus writing in the dust and saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone does not exist in this translation
A foot note states that many consider the omitted verses to be of questionable sourcing

Why would some bibles have these verses and others leave them out?

The simple answer is that there are some older manuscripts that lack the reading.  If credence is placed in the older manuscript, then the reading is left out.  The assumption is that the older manuscripts are closer to the source documents.

By the way, many view the New World Translation with suspicion. It is a product of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses.) From what I've heard, there isn't much known about how they created the translation.


How many Catholics are excommunicated in an average year? Giving the strict nature of so many Catholic  teachings it would seem that their would be a lot of folks who find abiding by the rules just to difficult.
Pre marital extramarital sex contraception use etc...
Are there significant numbers who are excommunicated and who makes the decision to do so?

I do not think that any hard numbers are kept about excommunications, because excommunication is intended to help persons repent of their sins, not to pillory them in public.

However, the short answer is that there are very few excommunications imposed or declared each year.

Note that none of the sins mentioned by the O.P. merit excommunication. Excommunication is reserved only for extremely grave offenses that, in the judgment of the Church, cause grave and lasting harm to the faithful or to society, and hence require special treatment in Church law.

Some background regarding excommunication

Excommunication is a penalty imposed for extremely grave offenses that Canon Law specifically treats as delicts or crimes. When applying the penalty, the Church does not consider only the severity of the offense, but also whether, given the circumstances and times, certain goods need special protection under the law. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1463.)

For example, because unborn children are extremely vulnerable nowadays to abortion, the Church punishes those who procure abortion with an automatic excommunication. (There is debate among canonists as to what “procuring” abortion consists in, but all agree that the doctor performing it and the medical staff strictly necessary for the procedure to occur fall under this penalty; see Code of Canon Law [CIC] 1398.)

There are also penalties of excommunication for various sacrilegious acts, such as desecrating the Eucharist, revealing the secret of Confession, assaulting the Pope, and so on. (There is actually a fairly complete list on Wikipedia, for the curious. It seems to omit the relatively new penalty for attempting to ordain women.)

The effects of excommunication

It is important to remember that excommunication does not remove a person’s membership in the Church. It merely imposes a penalty which, among other things, forbids that person from receiving the Sacraments. (It also, for example, prevents a person from holding an office in the Church.) Communion can be restored by repenting of the action accomplished, and seeking reconciliation from a priest (or bishop) with the necessary faculties to lift the excommunication. Also, any person may receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation when he is in danger of death. (In such a case, if he recovers, although his excommunication has been lifted, he is obliged to make recourse to the competent Church authority as soon as he can reasonably do so.)

See CIC 1331, for more information on the effects of this penalty.

Latae sententiae vs. ferendae sententiae

An exact answer to the O.P.’s question is complicated by the fact that the Canon Law contemplates two kinds of excommunication: one that is incurred simply by committing an act (latae sententiae); and the other, imposed by a competent Church authority (ferendae sententiae).

Latae sententiae excommunications are generally not known to the general public, and public records are not kept about them. Reconciliation with the Church is done entirely in the so-called “internal forum”—that is, secretly, in the confessional. Hence, it is extremely difficult to estimate the number.

(My personal estimate, as a priest, is that the number is relatively low, because a number of stringent conditions are necessary for the excommunication to occur: the person must be an adult, must be free from grave fear, and must be fully aware that excommunication results from his actions.)

Latae sententiae excommunications, in particularly grave and public circumstances, can be declared—as happened in the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, and the four bishops consecrated by them, in 1988.

An excommunication can, on the other hand, be ferendae sententiae; that is, imposed as a penalty by competent Church authority.

Counting declared latae sententiae and all ferendae sententiae excommunications together, there is only a small number each year, especially considering the sheer size of the Church—some 1.3 billion according to CARA.

(There is, oddly enough, a list kept on Wikipedia of Catholics excommunicated by year.)


Is there biblical reference to Michael, the archangel’s role and being? I am looking for the biblical references to Michael the angel ? And what are/were his/her role? There are some christian groups that attributes  Michael same with Jesus. Is there any biblical reference to it?

Well, Jude 9 says:

  But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

From that verse, it would seem to be hard to equate Michael and Jesus.

The only other reference to "archangel" I know of is in 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

That verse seems to indicate the "voice of the archangel" will announce Christ's (
the Lord Himself) return - again listed as a separate being.


Is the Greek word Protoktistos used anywhere in the Bible? Arguing against the teaching that Jesus is a created being, some point out that calling him the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) does not mean the first created.
The trinitarian will often say that had the scripture intended to say Jesus is the first created thing the word Protoktistos would have been used rather than prototokos.
Then they state that the word Protoktistos is never used in connection with Jesus.

My question is:
Can you cite examples in the scriptures where the word Protoktistos is used? I would like to compare the places it is used with the places where prototokos is used.

I am quoting from Young's Concordance and therefore looking at the KJV :-
Κτιστης Ktistes 'Creator' occurs once.

... served the creature more than the Creator [Romans 1:25]

Κτιζο, ktizo - the verb to create - occurs fourteen times.
But neither protoktizo nor protoktistos nor protoktistes ever occur in the (KJV) bible.

My 1,700 page special American edition of Liddell & Scott lists both

πρωτοκτιστης protoktistes 'first founder or creator ... and
πρωτοκτιστος protoktistos 'founded or created first'

as occurring in Hellenistic Greek literature, other than the bible.
(Note that the first 'o' is an omega ω, and the second is an omicron ο.)

Πρωτοτοκος prototokos (from the word τοκος tokos meaning 'usury') occurs nine times in the KJV Greek text. In saying 'the Greek text' I mean the belated Scrivener text of 1894, as the KJV translators did not actually produce a Greek text but used - largely - Erasmus and Beza and the Computensian Polyglot.
Tokos is used twice in scripture in parallel passages of the gospel accounts and relates to usury (interest on money loaned) each time. The word 'born' is not actually present in the word, as such.
Any interpretation of the word needs to convey the meaning of the root word tokos as well as the meaning of the prefix, protos, which indisputably means 'first'.
In a generational context, prototokos does not draw attention to the matter of a birth, as such. The word is much more forward looking than that. It is a matter of the 'return' on an 'investment', the initial birth (in the context of birth, which is not essential to the word) being the first 'token' of the success of the entire
'project'.


Why are days like "Sunday" or "Monday" not mentioned in the Bible? Even though we celebrate Good Friday and Easter Sunday, there is no mention of days such as "Sunday" or "Wednesday" in the Bible.

Why are days not mentioned in the Bible?

The ancient Hebrew people simply numbered the days of the week except for Saturday which was known as the Sabbath.

  In Hebrew, the days of the week are simply numbered, except for the 7th, which is the Sabbath (Shabbat, שַׁבָּת ). - The Days of the Week

As for the Greco-Roman tradition:

  Between the 1st and 3rd centuries the Roman Empire gradually replaced the eight-day Roman nundinal cycle with the seven-day week. Our earliest evidence for this new system is a Pompeiian graffito referring to the 6th February (viii idus Februarius) of the year AD 60 as dies solis ("Sunday") - Names of the days of the week

It could be noted that some Liturgical books in the Catholic Church still use a numbered system for the days of the week.

  In the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic tradition, the first day of the week is Sunday. Biblical Sabbath (corresponding to Saturday), when God rested from six-day Creation, made the day following Sabbath the first day of the week (corresponding to Sunday). Seventh-day Sabbaths were sanctified for celebration and rest. After the week was adopted in early Christianity, Sunday remained the first day of the week, but also gradually displaced Saturday as the day of celebration and rest, being considered the Lord's Day.

  Saint Martin of Dumio (c. 520–580), Archbishop of Braga, decided not to call days by pagan gods and to use ecclesiastic terminology to designate them. While the custom of numbering the days of the week was mostly prevalent in the Eastern Church, Portuguese and Galician, due to Martin's influence, are the only Romance languages in which the names of the days come from numbers rather than planetary names. - Days numbered from Sunday (Wikipedia).

As for the Roman Rite itself:

  In the Roman Rite liturgy, the term feria is used in Latin to denote days of the week other than Sunday and Saturday. Some use the term even in English, but the official translation of the Roman Missal uses "weekday" instead. Various reasons are given for the Latin terminology. The sixth lesson for December 31 in the pre-1969 Roman Breviary says that Pope Sylvester I ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. (Wikipedia).


In dispensationalism: Was gracious salvation through Christ an alternative plan In the course of doing research in eschatology, I found this quote by the now deceased dispensationalist scholar, and Dallas Theological Seminary founder Lewis Sperry Chafer:

  It may be concluded that the term "kingdom of heaven" as used in the
  early ministry of Jesus referred to the Messianic, Davidic, earthly
  kingdom seen in the Old Testament. As has been noted, the Jewish
  preachers needed no instruction in the details of that message. It was
  the hope of their nation, and it was addressed to that nation alone.
  So, also, an appeal was made with this message for the anticipated
  national repentance, which must precede the setting up of the kingdom
  in the earth, and the requirements set forth were legal rather than
  gracious. Israel's kingdom was faithfully offered to them by their
  King at His first appearing.
   (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 51)

Here's what I gathered from this quote.

The Lord Jesus Christ "faithfully" offered the Jews of His day a Messianic kingdom.
This Messianic kingdom would be similar to but grander than the Davidic kingdom.
This kingdom age would be totally legal. In other words, no salvation by grace.

According to Chafer's other writings on the subject, the Kingdom was rejected by the Jews, which prompted God to offer salvation through grace. The writings of Darby, Scofield, and Walford generally concur with Chafer's.

How does the dispensationalist view the Jewish rejection: As a matter of Israel exercising free will prompting God to change His original plan? Or as Christ's "faithful" offer to Israel and subsequent rejection part of God's original plan.

If needed, please correct my shortsightedness on any of the above conclusions.

In dispensationalism: Was gracious salvation through Christ an alternative plan

  Ephesians 1:3-4  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
  Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
  places in Christ:   According as he hath chosen us in him before the
  foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
  before him in love:

The concept of “alternative” does arise periodically in the Bible and it is illustrative of the intersection of free will and God’s plans. For example;

  Exodus 32:9-10  And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people,
  and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:   Now therefore let me alone,
  that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them:
  and I will make of thee a great nation.

When God offered the nation of Israel the first covenant they all accepted.

  Exodus 24:7-8  And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the
  audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said
  will we do, and be obedient.   And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled
  it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which
  the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Jesus offered the second covenant by his sacrifice on the cross. At the time only a few were interested or even cared to understand.

The approximately 70 years between the birth of Jesus and the destruction of the temple, Israel had a legitimate offer of the Kingdom for her to accept. Jesus never once winked and said, “I know you guys are going to blow it, so here is the real plan”.

If Israel had accepted the Kingdom, the last two thousand years would have been war free, people would have longer lives, and nature itself would have been made less hostile.

We get a picture of this possible world from the description Jesus gives his disciples after the resurrection;

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Regardless if Israel received the kingdom 2,000 years ago or if a future faithful remnant receives the Kingdom at the end of the tribulation, God’s word still stands.

What we have with the example of the offer of the kingdom is the exercise of free will by the nation of Israel. It is not a brutal hand of God forcing the next step of his plan to become a reality. We can see a little of this with Elijah;

  1 Kings 19:14  And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God
  of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant,
  thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and
  I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
  .....1 Kings 19:18  Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all
  the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath
  not kissed him.

It is almost like God is telling Elijah, “Don’t worry about my plans, I still have 7,000 people I can use. I am concerned about you.”

God’s plans will be accomplish regardless of the faithfulness or faithlessness of man.


Do we Give our life to Christ or receive Christ's Life? I just read this post from a friend and I am a bit confused. According to him you don't give your life to Christ, you instead receive Christ's life.

I want to deeply understand this. What is the difference? What, according to Bible, is supposed to be said?

I'm going to explain these two terms as they are normally used in Christian circles.

When someone talks about "giving their life to Christ" they mainly mean it in the sense of being a completely dedicated follower of Jesus. This is in the same sense that we might say of a dedicated doctor that "she gave her life to curing diseases" - meaning that she spent all her time doing it, made it her number one priority etc. With Jesus, saying that "we give our life to Jesus" is meant in that sense, but also in the sense that we trust Jesus with our life - we hand it over to him for safekeeping, in the same way that a child might "give" a large amount of money to his parents for safekeeping. In both of those senses we can and should "give our lives to Jesus", and there is Biblical support for both.

There is another sense of giving something in which we mean "to make a gift of something to someone for their benefit" - for example to give a car to someone who needs it. In that sense your friend is right, in that we cannot give anything to Jesus that he needs - not even our lives. He is God and has everything he needs.

It is also true that we receive new life from Jesus. This is fundamental to Christian doctrine, and well-attested in the Bible - for example Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30 and 1 Timothy 1:16.

TLDR: Your friend is right about us receiving life from Jesus, but we do also give our lives to Jesus in some ways.


Are there any Bible verses about 'Being on your Knees' that do not specifically mention praying? I'm writing a dystopian novel and am looking for a Bible verse that I could potentially take out of context. Although it sounds bad, I can assure you in no way, shape, or form is this book anti-Christian.

That being said, I'm looking for a Bible verse, preferably short(er), one that mentions being on your knees but does not specifically mention praying.

Obviously, in the actual Bible there's more surrounding context in nearby verses but once that verse is removed from the context, I am then able to twist the words to something more suggestive.

In essence, I'm searching for something I could use as a double-entendre but although I've been searching for awhile now, have continued to come up empty handed.

I should clarify that I am unsure of whether or not a Bible verse mentioning one 'being on their knees' in a potentially suggestive manner exists.

As Mac’s Musings has already mentioned, in 2 Kings 1:13 a captain of the king “fell on his knees before Elijah” to beg for mercy.  Here are some more Old Testament verses that describe people getting down on their knees for reasons other than to pray:

Kneeling before a king to seek favour: “Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king (David)” (1 Kings 1:16).
Kneeling in worship of pagan gods: “I reserve seven thousand in Israel – all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him” (1 Kings 19:18).
Kneeling as an act of worship: “The whole assembly bowed in worship... the king and everyone present with him knelt down and worshipped” (2 Chronicles 29:28-29).
Kneeling to pay honour to an official: “All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honour to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him.  But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honour” (Esther 3:2).
Kneeling as an act of worship and submission:  “Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker” (Psalm 95:6).


Luke's introduction, doesn't seem like he is claiming he was inspired? When reading the introduction of the Gospel of Luke, it seems very clear that he isn't really claiming to be inspired by God or anything. Rather he is saying that he thinks himself to be more worthy of writing these accounts because he knows the story from the beginning (and probably also because he is educated and not some unlettered person).

Luke 1:1-4 (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4  That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

What really gets me is his statement:

It seemed good to me also

And another interesting point is that he mentions that many people have written Gospels (which we have only basically 4 now):

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration

So I am interested to know, on what basis do the Christians say these accounts are inspired or the word of God? The author sure doesn't sound to come off as that to me, it seems more like a historical account, albeit one that is theologically based, and not something that sounds inspired.

Christians do not believe that the Bible was dictated by God in the same sense that Muslims believe the Quran was dictated to Muhammed. They believe that God inspired the writers, through their own knowledge and personalities, to write the things that God wanted his people to know and remember. Because of this it is possible for an author to write inspired scripture without even being aware of it. It is also true that the early church spent hundreds of years in prayer, in research, and in consideration before choosing the books that today make up the Bible, and the belief is that the process was also inspired by God through his Spirit.

The introduction to Luke does not in any way contradict this. Luke (and it's sister book, Acts) is a carefully researched and collated story of the Life of Jesus and the early church. It is also inspired by God, who worked within the life and thoughts of Luke to bring these writing to fruition. This issue is not restricted to Luke. Many of the other books are letters written by Christian leaders to their churches. It is likely that they did not know of God's working through them, or that their writings would one day become holy scripture. However that does not make it any less true.


Why did Jesus ask his disciples to collect the fragments of bread in baskets? Why did Jesus asked his disciples to collect the fragments of bread in baskets?

As per scripture Jesus ask is disciples to collect only the bread fragments only,
but not the bones or flesh of the fish....

While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are not clear as to whether the fragments were of bread alone (they only mention 12 baskets of leftovers), the gospel of John indicates that the fragments were indeed of bread.

Quoting John 6:13 from NASB translation:

  So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten.

It is the same with KJV and NIV translations. See parallel view of all three translations.

And the reason why Jesus asked the disciples to gather the leftovers is found in the previous verse, John 6:12

  When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.”

Jesus wanted all the leftover fragments to be gathered, but the leftover fragments in this case only happened to be fragments of bread. (The crowd must have really loved the fish!)

And note that the bread and the fish were given by a lad (John 6:9) and Jesus gave thanks to the Father for them (John 6:11), blessed them (Matthew 14:19), broke them (Luke 9:16) and asked the disciples to distribute them.

The message Jesus wanted to convey was that: What is given to Him will be received with thanks, blessed, broken and be used to bless others. Nothing of what is given to Him will be wasted.

Another thing we learn from this is indicative of the principle we find in the life of Jesus: He was not wasteful. And He wanted His disciples also to learn this principle from Him.


Does the Roman Catholic Church embrace theistic evolution? In 1996, Pope John Paul II gave a speech in a plenary assembly at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, documented here. It seems he embraced a version of Theistic Evolution (sometimes called Guided Evolution).

I have two questions:

Does the Roman Catholic Church endorse Theistic Evolution (Guided Evolution)?
And more important: if that's the case: where is the division between the last "pre-human" and the first human with access to salvation by means of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

The position of the Catholic Church is necessarily consistent with the position espoused by the pope, which position can also be described as having evolved since the middle of the twentieth century as:

Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that
there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the
faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious
hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that
of the opposing hypothesis;
Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as "more than a hypothesis";
Pope Benedict spoke of "theistic evolution" which considers that God created
life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.
In 2014, Pope Francis told an audience from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican City, "When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness."

This is the position as stated by Catholic Answers:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

As we can see, the Church holds that the soul is not part of physical evolution, not having been inherited from our parents.  The first parents to have souls were Adam and Eve, whether they were the first of creation or evolved from previous soul-less hominids. Only Adam and Eve, and their successors can look forward to salvation, because only we have a soul.
The Catechism of the Church takes a carefully ambiguous position, neither supporting nor refuting evolution, thereby allowing catechumens to hold either beliefs:

283: The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."


Who ordered Saint Stephen to death? I have learnt that some of the Jews linked to the early Jewish council stoned St. Stephen to death and Paul as a witness. But I have a bit of confusion that who ordered the decree of Stephan's death.

Who ordered Saint Stephen to death?

No individual person ordered St. Stephen to be stoned to death. If in fact someone had ordered Stephen’s execution, I believe St. Luke would have named that individual in the Book of Acts.

  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him. - Acts 7:57

Moreover, the Jews themselves made a point of making known the Roman authority in regards to executing someone to Pilate himself when they wanted Jesus put to death!

  31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

  “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. - John 18:31

General consensus has it that the crowd spontaneously has him stoned. St. Stephen’s words in themselves infuriated the the Jews listening to his words. In today way of thinking, I would suspect that the modern phrase that it was due something like to a spontaneous local public uprising in the affair of St. Stephen’s stoning.

Simply put St. Stephen’s words infuriated the Jews standing before him.

It is equally possible that some members of the Jewish Sanhedrin or even the high priest that year, could have influenced the decision made by the crowd, for some of them were present!

  The stoning of Stephen

  Thus castigated, the account is that the crowd could contain their anger no longer. However, Stephen looked up and cried, "Look! I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God!" He said that the recently executed Jesus was standing by the side of God.[9][Acts 7:54] The people from the crowd, who threw the first stones laid their coats down so as to be able to do this, at the feet of a "young man named Saul" (later known as Paul the Apostle). Stephen prayed that the Lord would receive his spirit and his killers be forgiven, sank to his knees, and "fell asleep".[Acts 7:58–60] Saul "approved of their killing him."[Acts 8:1] In the aftermath of Stephen's death, the remaining disciples fled to distant lands, many to Antioch.[Acts 11:19–20] - Saint Stephen

Knowing that the Jewish nation was under Roman occupation; they did not have the right to put any man to death. Thus, it only makes sense that his death was due to a popular uprising, thus keeping both the High Priest and the Jewish Sanhedrin away from being considered as ignoring the Roman authority’s powers.

Seeing that the high priests could easily be deposed by Roman authority, it would be highly unlikely that Caiaphas would have been willing to to implicated in Stephen’s death in 34 AD.

In any case he was eventually deposed in 36/37 AD.

  Joseph Caiaphas

  Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, by marriage to his daughter. He was appointed by the Roman governor Valerius Gratus in AD 18 (Jos Ant 18:2:2), and ruled as high priest for eighteen years. This was the longest reign of any high priest in New Testament times. He remained high priest under Pontius Pilate, and was finally deposed in AD 36 by Vitellius, the governor of Syria. He was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas (Jos Ant 18:4:3). Pontius Pilate was removed from office a few months before Caiaphas, after killing large numbers of Samaritans (Jos Ant 18:4:2). Caiaphas was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas


How could animals have gotten all around the world after the flood? I am a Christian, but this question has been troubling me for a long time. If all the world's animals dispersed from Mt. Ararat, it would stand to reason that there should be no animals in the Americas today. This cannot be explained by plate tectonics, a process far too slow to be of any aid. Or perhaps the flood did not affect the Americas? Or could they have crossed over the Aleutian islands, on the land bridge across the Bering Strait through which humans first arrived in the Americas? If so, when did that bridge disappear and how did it disappear so quickly?

Usual preface that seems necessary to head off debate on such questions and answers - this isn't endorsing or denying the YEC view, just answering how various YEC groups would answer the question.  Whether the YEC'ers are right or wrong is completely off-topic, as has the long-standing policy been.

While we can't answer this definitively, several possibilities have been proposed by those that hold the literal Young Earth Creationist view, which includes a literal global flood,

ChristianAnswers.Net, for example, while firmly stating that we don't know for sure, offers the possibility that land bridges once joined the various continents.  This isn't too far off from the old-earth view that people crossed to the Americas from Asia via a land bridge that formed during the ice ages.

Answers in Genesis, also prefacing their article with a "this is what we think, but we don't know for sure" disclaimer, discusses the fact that we know very little of what the earth was like immediately following the flood.  Continents may still have been shifting, there may have still been major upheavals and changes not recorded, and the re-colonization of the world may have been possible because things were still connected - again, land bridges.

Some others, including this blogger think that Pangaea was real, and was broken up in the days of Peleg.  It's not a widely accepted interpretation of the text, but this blogger isn't the first that I've seen use it:

  There is an obscure passage in Genesis that is generally overlooked,
  but holds what I believe to be great insight into our early world
  after the flood.  Genesis 10:25 states “Two sons were born to Eber:
  One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided”.   I
  believe this passage describes a time when God supernaturally
  separated the continents one from another. The Bible says that Peleg
  (which means divide) was born 100 years after the flood and lived for
  239 years.  The time frame for the continental split would therefore
  have been 100 years after the flood until 339 years after the flood.
  The division is said to have taken place during his lifetime, but
  doesn’t say how long it took.

Cretation.com goes as far as to say that the bigger problem is for the evolutionist, citing the fact that so many similar species exist on each continent.  They argue that if the evolution theory were true, you'd expect far greater differences between life on different continents.  They argue that the fact that so many similar and even same species exist on the various continents is evidence that they did not evolve in isolation, but sprang from the same Biblical kinds in recent history.

Another creation.com article offers an alternative suggestion, or perhaps supplemental explanation to land bridges:  Natural rafts.

  Another explanation which is gaining increasing support is the rafting
  hypothesis.

  Interestingly, the potential for dispersal of plants and animals
  across large stretches of water by natural rafts has been accepted by
  evolutionists for many years. Professor Paul Moody of the University
  of Vermont argued, “In times of flood, large masses of earth and
  entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the
  banks of rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are
  encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush
  and green, with palms, twenty to thirty feet [7 to 10 m] tall. It is
  entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances
  in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a
  speed of at least two knots; this would amount to fifty miles [80 km]
  a day, 1000 miles [1600 km] in three weeks.”1


Why did Our Lady of Lourdes say "I am the Immaculate Conception" and not "I am immaculately conceived" or "I am the Mother of God"? In 1858 St. Bernadette asked for the name of the beautiful Lady who was appearing to her. The Beautiful Lady answered her "I am the Immaculate Conception." Why didn't she simply tell her she was the Mother of God? Or why didn't she say "I am immaculately conceived."

Our Lady of Lourdes appears to St. Bernadette and tells her "I am the Immaculate Conception".

Joan Cruz's See How She Loves Us: 50 Approved Apparitions of Our Lady, § "Our Lady of Lourdes":

  Members of the family and countless visitors had implored Bernadette several times to ask the identity of the Lady. Bernadette had done so, but the Lady had not responded. During the sixteenth apparition on March 25, 1858, the Feast of the Annunciation, Bernadette asked once more. This time the Lady responded in the Bigourdane dialect, “Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou,” which means, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

  In the year 1854, four years before the start of the apparitions at Lourdes, Pope Pius IX had declared [in Ineffabilis Deus] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be an “article of faith” to be believed by all Catholics. The doctrine was neither understood nor discussed among persons of Bernadette’s station in life,* so it was reasonable that Bernadette did not understand the words spoken by the Lady.

*Her family was extremely poor, living in a barn with a window facing a dunghill.

St. Bernadette—who was 14 years old, unlettered, and failed her catechism exam—couldn't even pronounce "Immaculada Conceptiou" when she told others this was who the Lady said she was. However, priests certainly knew that the Immaculate Conception is the Mother of God. There is no way St. Bernadette could have fabricated this, which proves the miraculous nature of the Our Lady of Lourdes apparitions.

Why she said "I am the Immaculate Conception" and not "I am immaculately conceived"

Fr. Karl Stehlin's Who Are You, O Immaculata? p. 114 (PDF p. 132) explains:

  At Lourdes the Immaculate Virgin answered St.
  Bernadette: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception!’ With these
  words she clearly stated that she is not only immaculately
  conceived, but is the Immaculate Conception. In the same
  way, a thing that is white is something other than whiteness
  itself, and a perfect thing is something other than perfection
  itself. When God spoke about Himself, He said to Moses,
  ‘I am Who am,’ that is, it belongs to My essence that I
  always have my being from Myself, without beginning.
  In contrast, the Immaculate Virgin has her beginning in
  God, is a creation, is a conception. Nevertheless she is the
  Immaculate Conception.

She is, as St. Maximillian Kolbe put it, "the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Ghost." She and the Holy Ghost can both be properly called the Immaculate Conception (ibid. pp. 50-51, PDF pp. 68-69):

  We can say likewise that she is the greatest, most excellent, purest Temple of the Holy Ghost. Mary herself corroborates this truth when she defines herself at Lourdes: “I am the Immaculate Conception” and thus assigns to herself the title that in the strict sense is an attribute of God (“I am...”) and is applied in particular to the Holy Ghost, who within the Trinity is the eternally perfect, “immaculate” conception of the Father and the Son.

    If among creatures a bride takes the name of her husband by the fact that she belongs to him, unites herself with him, makes herself like unto him and together with him becomes the source of new life, how much more should the name of the Holy Spirit, "Immaculate Conception", be the name of her in whom He lives with a love which is fruitful in the entire supernatural economy?4

  4. Final article of February 17, 1941, KR 212-213

(taken from this answer)


Have Christians opposed "Good Luck" wishes? We have a great question about whether luck exists.  My question is to what extent have Christians frowned upon wishing someone "good luck" in church tradition.  Has it been frowned upon as a pagan practice?

Yes in Word of Faith circles we are trained not to say good luck as there is no such thing as luck. We say other things like "I'm praying for you", "God bless" and "it will work out". The verse we go in relation to this like many others is Mark 11:22.


Why do some Christians wear crosses? Why do some Christians wear crosses? What is the purpose of wearing the cross? What is the point of wearing the cross with a tiny Jesus on it? Is wearing a cross with or without Jesus a violation of one of the commandments of the Decalogue? How do Christians-who-wear-crosses justify their wearing crosses?

I think this demands a cross-denominational answer, because I at least know both Baptists and Catholics wear crosses, and many priests and pastors from various denominations would wear a cross about their chests.

The Cross is a Symbol of Victory

To modern Christians, the cross is an icon, a visual symbol of victory of Jesus over sin and death. It is incorporated into countless logos and images used by Christians because it was the means by which the greatest act of love and grace was accomplished. There's a certain irony that the figure of an instrument of execution has been turned into a symbol of triumph, which makes it that much more pleasing to the Christian. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 comes to mind in this regard:

  For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

People wear a cross as if to proclaim to the world that Christ was victorious over death (and therefore, so shall we be).

Idolatry?

(I'm assuming this is the commandment alluded to in the question.)

Having a picture, symbol, icon, etc. of a thing is not the same as having an object of worship. I believe that groups who use a crucifix (Jesus on the cross) use it as a vivid reminder during prayer or meditation, not an object that represents God and is worshiped as such.

I cannot provide a thorough answer for the practice of Roman Catholics, but I'm certain that they do not believe themselves to be making an idol or worshiping it. All the references I see to crucifixes, like Prayer Before a Crucifix (emphasis added), include "before" and no other preposition (like "to"). Roman Catholics and others who pray to saints do not believe themselves to be worshiping an idol or making an image fully representative of the living God.

I found a more thorough treatment of its use and history in Roman Catholicism here: The Cross and Crucifix in Liturgy.

There is no Christian practice of worshiping a cross or an image of Jesus. To a Christian, having a sculpture or pendant crucifix is no different than having a painting of illustration of Jesus. They are tools to remind us of important things, not objects of worship.


What does the Parable of the Vineyard Workers mean? Does the Parable of the Vineyard Workers (in Matthew 20) mean that those who die exactly on judgement day will be the first to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Does this mean that when people die they effectively sleep unconsciously until day of judgement? So that the order will be those who die on Judgement day first, followed in order backwards to the beginning of creation?

I love this parable. The labourers symbolize humans, so you and me and everyone else. The householder is God. Working in the vineyard represents being faithful to God in your lifetime. And the money symbolizes Heaven/God's Glory.

The first group of people work for the whole day. So this means that the first group are faithful and obedient to god for their whole life. The second group works three hours less than the first. This means that this group of people were unfaithful to God their first part of their life but were converted and were faithful for most of their life... And the last group hardly worked at all in comparison with all the other groups. So this means that this group of people were unfaithful their whole life, except were converted for the very last part of their life.

At the end of the day, everyone receives the same pay no matter how long they worked. What this means is that all people who are faithful to God will make it to heaven and receive the same reward from god, regardless of how long they have been faithful in their lifetime.

Keep in mind that being faithful and your reward from God can vary depending on your specific denomination.

(In my personal understanding, I don't think Jesus was trying to give the message of "Party your whole life and become faithful your later years" as some might take it. I think he was more trying to get the point across that if you have been faithful your whole life, don't be proud and think that you are better than those who become faithful later in their life. Also I think he is trying to say that no matter who you are or at what point in life you are, Jesus will accept you with open arms and not discriminate against you. Also in my personal experience, I am a happier person when I follow gods commandments so I believe those who entered in the vineyard in the morning actually had it the best because their whole life they were able to enjoy the happiness of being Faithful.)


Why did the Blessed Virgin Mary marry? According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Virgin Mary, who intended to remain a virgin, marry St. Joseph?

According to ch. 6 of Brown, O.F.M.'s The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics, a compilation of the approved private "Revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schoenau, St. Bridget of Sweden, Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda and Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich," she married because her parents died and young girls' service in the Temple was not perpetual:

WHEN MARY reached the age of thirteen and a half, having grown considerably for her age, Almighty God in a vision commanded her to enter the state of matrimony. Because of her intense love of chastity and her early vow of perpetual virginity, which she had often renewed, this divine order meant to her a sacrifice as painful as that of Abraham when God commanded him to offer up his son’s life.
When Mary heard this unexpected decree, she was astonished and became greatly afflicted. Nevertheless she prudently suspended her own judgment and preserved her faith and hope more perfectly than Abraham. Still hoping against hope, she meekly replied:
“Eternal God, Thou, O Lord, canst dispose of me, Thy worthless little worm, according to Thy pleasure, without making me fail in what I have promised. And if it be not displeasing to Thee, my good Lord, I renew my desire to remain chaste during all my life.”
Thus Mary in her great trial, though she felt some human uneasiness and sadness, obediently resigned herself entirely to the Will of God. And the Lord answered her:
“Mary, let not thy heart be disturbed, for thy resignation is acceptable to Me. And by My disposition, that will happen which is best for thee.”
Then, as God intended, while left between uncertainty and hope, Mary gave herself over to fervent prayer and inner acts of love, faith, humility, obedience and chastity.
Meanwhile the Lord spoke in sleep to the High Priest, who happened to be St. Simeon, and commanded him to arrange the marriage of Mary, whom He regarded with special love, to whomever it seemed right to the council of priests. After consulting together, the priests appointed a day on which all the bachelors of the line of David, which was also Mary’s, were to assemble in the Temple.
Nine days before that date, Simeon called in Mary and gently explained to her that as she was an orphan and a first-born daughter with an inheritance, now near the age when the young girls had to leave the service of the Temple and marry, the priests were planning to find her a worthy husband. Though deeply moved, Mary replied with great composure and modesty:
“As far as my inclinations are concerned, I desire to preserve chastity during all my life, and I never had the intention to enter the married state. But you, my master, will teach me God’s holy Will.”


Catholic orders controlling diocesan territory Under Imperial Spain, several Mexican apostolic colleges staffed missions in the Californias. This remote part of the diocese of Sonora was best accessed by sea, and the empire paid travel expenses for missionaries. Most prominent was the Franciscan College of San Fernando, which sent 127 friars to Upper California over half a century. In addition to their ministries, the fathers managed the temporalities of the mission agricultural complexes. Their position was quite different from that of a secular diocesan priest.

What part of Roman canon law allows part of a diocese to be entirely delegated to an apostolic order? Would a bishop want to consent not to send any diocesan priests to the territory? Is this arrangement still possible, and if not, when and where was it last used?

It is very common for mission territory to be evangelized by religious orders; up until the end of Communist rule in Yugoslavia, for instance, only Franciscan friars were allowed to minister to Catholics in that country, so all parishes in Croatia and Slovenia (which are Catholic majority) were staffed by Franciscans. After that, a secular Bishop has been installed and secular Clergy are being implanted, and this sometimes causes friction with the pre-existing Franciscans. This is one of the reasons for the reported "dislike" of the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno for the apparitions at Medjugorje.

Regarding the Colonial Americas, the mission in the New World was mostly given out to religious orders: the Jesuits kept mostly to the Portuguese Americas and the Plata river valley, Dominicans took care of the Andes and the Caribbean, and Franciscans evangelised in Mexico and what is now the West/Southwest of the United States. Until the 19th Century or so, there were few dioceses and the Bishops had precious few secular priests to minister to the faithful concentrated in the colonial capitals like Salvador, Buenos Aires, Lima, San José, México and New Orleans. The ministering to the indians and their evangelisation out in the country required special training (even linguistic), which the Orders were usually best at providing.

Eventually, as the lands were evangelised and colonised, the Orders passed the baton to the secular priests, as they changed their focus to other underEvangelised places like Africa and Southeast Asia. Obviously, the "Enlightened Despotism" of the mid-18th Century saw the Orders have much of their possessions confiscated by the secular governments of Portugal and Spain — the Jesuits were even suppressed by the Pope at the insistence of the Marquis of Pombal, Portugal's prime minister — and the secular priesthood stepped up to fill the void.

Finally, regarding Canon Law, there is nothing in it that forbids Orders from having possessions like monasteries and associated land; it's more or less the point for Cloistered orders like the Benedictines, and the famous Jesuit and Franciscan missions were also organised in a like manner.


Was defining the New Testament originally condemned as heresy? This BBC documentary describes how during the first two centuries, scriptures about Jesus circulated without any author mentioned in them.  It then goes on to suggest that actually writing down a New Testament around then was heretical.  Here's a key quote, from 4:10 in the video:

  The Christian theologian who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was roundly condemned as a heretic.

Is this true?  Why was having a New Testament heretical?  Who might she have been talking about?

It is impossible to know for sure without asking the person that said it,  but I believe it is most likely, given her description of the individual in question,  the historical time frame and the context of the discussion,  that she was speaking of a man named Marcion.
Who was Marcion?

For the first hundred years or so of the Christian faith, documents like the letters written by Paul, and the four histories of Jesus, which we call “the Gospels”, had been circulated and copied throughout the churches for use in teaching. Very quickly, these documents came to be regarded as holy Scripture, of equal importance as the Jewish scriptures, which are referred to today as the Old Testament.
Around 140 A.D. (110 years after Jesus' death), a man called Marcion began teaching a version of Christianity which viewed the God of the Old Testament as a wrathful God incompatible with the loving God of the New Testament. He therefore rejected the theology of the Old Testament. To support his teachings, Marcion published a canon – a list of documents which he considered to be holy Scripture – which included only an edited version of the Gospel of Luke, and 10 of Paul's letters. This situation highlighted the need for consistent understanding in the Church of what documents (or books) were indeed canonical (i.e. accepted as authoritative), and could be used for setting and defending church doctrine. 1

It is a bit anachronistic for the above article and the video’s quote to refer to the “New Testament” since there wasn’t anything by that name at that time. Rather, for Marcion, his “New Testament” was not new in the chronological sense,  but was new for the purpose of replacing the Old Testament.
Why was Marcion a heretic?
Marcion was not a heretic for writing down, or copying, the gospels and letters. He was not wrong,  though perhaps a bit unorthodox, to make a list of books he personally considered authoritative. He was a heretic because he denied many of the major pillars of the faith such as the physical incarnation of Christ and thereby His physical death and resurrection, the authority of the Torah and that the God of the Jews is the one supreme Creator.
Unfortunately for Marcion,  much of the established books of his day had at least some parts which disagreed with his beliefs. So Marcion decided to pick a canon of books,  and then edit them to suit his theology. 2 It was this “writing down” of a “New Testament” that I believe the video is referring to, typically known as "Marcion's Canon."
Ultimately, the church excommunicated Marcion and produced apologetics, such as Tertullian and Irenaeus, against Marcionism. Our New Testament today was arrived at through a process of which Marcion was a quickening influence.
Is the documentary referring to Marcion?

Father James Bernstein, an Orthodox church leader wrote: "The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. ... Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 7)

This statement,  combined with Marcion’s heresy and excommunication, is most likely what was being referred to in the video.  However,  while the quote is technically true, Marcion really was just the first to claim a definitive canon. All the books he used,  plus more, were already established as authoritative as seen by their use by church fathers. The fact he had an assortment of books from which to pick by name also shows that the core of the four gospels and the Pauline letters were already known and largely accepted.
Is the Documentary's Assertion Correct?

The Christian theologian who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was roundly condemned as a heretic.

In the end, this statement is, at best, misleading, if not a deliberate twisting of the truth. His condemnation as a heretic was not because of his canon. Rather, Marcion's canon was condemned because it removed books that were already accepted and removed the parts it disagreed with even in the few books he kept.
But yes, he did have the idea of a Canon, and yes, he was a heretic. But to say the one caused the latter is false.

1 - Theopedia - "Development of the canon"
2 – “Marcion and the Marcionites”


Comparison of Age of Earth according to Biblical theories I Have read that according to Biblical references the age of earth is 6000 years. Even if you quote Young Earth Creationism they too will give only 10,000 years old.

While in different belief like Hinduism, the age of the earth is comparable to that arrived to by contemporary scientific cosmology. Doesn't this imply the notion that the Bible isn't perfect at all?

There's not really much to say here. There are really only a few of options:

Those who think the Biblical texts are broadly historical and believe they indicate that both humanity and the earth have existed for only a few thousand years (typically between six and ten).
Those who think the Biblical texts are broadly historical in relation to humanity, believing that humanity have only existed for a few thousand years, but that the earth is much older. Specific options here include the Gap Theory and the Framework view of Genesis 1 (though many Framework proponents would say humanity is also much older).
Those who think the early chapters and genealogies in Genesis are either analogical, mythical, or just inaccurate, and so don't believe we can learn an accurate age for humanity or the earth from the Bible, and therefore turn to secular geology for the answer to these questions.


How did the people know that John the Baptist was a prophet? What reasons gave the people to believe that John The Baptist actually was a prophet and wasn't a hoax? Was it simply the Holy Spirit calling on souls or was there some other kind of proof?

I wouldn't overthink this one, LukeoX.

God obviously called John to be a prophet and a forerunner to His Son Jesus, the Christ (Luke 1:17). Consequently, in obedience to God's call John presented himself to the people as a witness, called by God to be a testimony to the Light. Put differently, John was a light to the people, and Jesus was the Light of the world (see John 1:4-9; cf. 8:12). John's little light paved the way for the big Light.

When people believed John's message, they proved the sincerity of their repentance by submitting to his baptism. They then became John's disciples (see Matthew 9:14; 11:2; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; 7:18; John 1:35; 3:25; and 4:1). The angel Gabriel told John's father that his yet-to-be-born son would come on the scene "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). In other words, John's preaching ministry would bear fruit, just as Elijah's did.

Now, what all was involved in being one of John's disciples is not exactly clear to me, nor does the Bible say too much about that. Unlike Jesus, however, I don't think John was called of God to form a denomination such as--oh, I don't know--Baptists perhaps!?
As the Christ's forerunner, he sort of faded into the background shortly after Jesus came on the scene. After all, John admitted humbly,

  "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

Not too terribly long after John made that statement, he was beheaded by King Herod. Interestingly, however, just before he died John told his disciples to ask Jesus,

  "'Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?'" (Luke 7:19).

Despite John's greatness in Jesus' eyes ("among those born of women," Jesus said, "there is no one greater than John"), even he struggled with doubts about the identity of his cousin(?), the son of his mom's relative, Mary, whom John's mom called "the mother of my Lord"! (Luke 1:43).


If according to the Jehovah Witnesses that "there was a time when God was alone," who was with God at John 1:1? The source for my question is found at the Jehovah Witnesses own web site: The Watchtower :

  His Origin Was From Early Times: "Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone."

It then asks a rhetorical question:

  Who was his first creation?

They say:

  The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as "the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation." Source: Watchtower 2005 9/15 pp. 4-7: Who Is Jesus Christ?

From the NASB it says at John 1:1,

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

According to the context the "Word/Logos" is identified as Jesus Christ. John 1:1-14.

  He was in the beginning with God and He was God.

If you're with somebody your a distinct person from that somebody.

Moreover, there is only one beginning. John's "beginning" is referring to the Genesis 1:1 beginning. At the Genesis 1:1 beginning it states, "In the beginning God created. So the Genesis "beginning" is telling us WHAT HAPPENED "in the beginning."

At John 1:1, "in the beginning" the emphasis in on WHO EXISTED "in the beginning." And verses like John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being. Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 and even Revelation 3:14 backs up John 1:1. At Revelation 3:14 Jesus is the "arche/beginning" or the source and origin of the beginning of time and space. We get our English word "architect" from the Greek word, "arche."

The following confirms what was stated and if more information is needed, that can be suppied as well: John 1.

The answer is in The Watchtower that you cite in your question.

The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that long before any angels were created, certainly long before and physical matter that makes up the universe  was formed, Jehovah created Jesus. If you need to say this happened outside of space and time to understand it that is fine. It was if space and time began with the creation of the universe.
We can better understand John’s words here if we analyze exactly what he said. Notice again that he wrote:

In the beginning was the Word.”

This, of course, was not talking about God’s beginning, for God had no beginning. (Psalm 90:1, 2)
It was the beginning of the things John was here discussing, including the creation of all other things by “the Word.”
Then John said: “The Word was with God.” A person who is with someone obviously is not the same as the one he is with.
So at John 1:1 when Jehovah began creating the heavens and the earth the Word (Jesus) was with Him.
Additional information on this closely  related question


"Holy man / saints" in the point of view of God according to the Calvinist? I was in the middle of a discussion in a Christian Forum, where the Calvinist member say that : "holy man / saint" can only exist only after Jesus died. Before Jesus died, all the OT people are neither holy nor saints, they are sinners - even soon after they died they are not holy/saints because they haven't been freed from their sins and their original sin by Christ's blood.

  2 Chronicles 23:6 But let none come into the house of the LORD,
  save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites; they shall go
  in, for they are holy: but all the people shall keep the watch of the
  LORD.

  Psalm 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to
  them that fear him.

  Deuteronomy 33:3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in
  thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of
  thy words.

  Ezra 8:28 And I said unto them, Ye are holy unto the LORD; the
  vessels are holy also; and the silver and the gold are a freewill
  offering unto the LORD God of your fathers.

It's the same question which I ask to the Calvinist member in that forum, but I don't get a satisfying answer from them as their reply starts to going around and around, jumping here and there.

So... my question is:
From the verse above - how come they are being said as "holy" or "saints" if according to the Calvinist, OT people are not holy/saint yet because the blood of Christ hasn't cleanse them yet ?

Unfortunately, the Calvinists in the web forum mentioned are misrepresenting the Calvinist position on Old Testament saints.

Westminster Confession of Faith 11:6 states: "The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament." (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XI: Of Justification.)

In context, it refers to the fact that justification is according to God's decrees for all the elect on the basis of Christ's death, with numerous additional clarifications. The point is that Christ's blood was equally efficacious for them.

Occasionally, you will hear Calvinist objections to calling a person, "Saint Such and Such," not because they believe it is incorrect, but because they think it can imply that there are special categories of Christians who qualify to be saints, while others are not. This has more to do with objecting to the Roman Catholic view of granting certain Christians sainthood after they die.

To Calvinists, a person who is in Christ by faith is a saint, and prior to the incarnation, there were Old Testament people who were in Christ.


What is the difference between Demon and Devil? Both terms, demon and devil, are used in various Bible passages.

According to Catholic Encylopedia:

  ... the chief of the demons is called the devil.

Is that true? Because the term devil is used with plural form (devils) in several Bible passages (e.g.: Luke 9: 1, Mark 3: 15 etc.)
Is there any exact difference between demon and devil?
What does Christian demonology say about this?

From the perspective of the Greek New Testament, demon could be said to represent δαίμων (daimōn, from which the corresponding English word is derived) and devil could be said to represent διάβολος (diabolos; viz. "diabolical").  A variant of the word δαίμων -  δαιμόνιον (daimonion) - is more often used.

Daimon and daimonion together appear 82 times in Scripture (17 times in the Septuagint, 65 in the New Testament).  Diabolos appears 60 times (22 times in the Septuagint, 38 in the New Testament).

The word diabolos can also mean "slanderer", as in:

  Esther 8:1 LXX

  Καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀρταξέρξης ἐδωρήσατο Εσθηρ ὅσα ὑπῆρχεν Αμαν τῷ διαβόλῳ

  And in that day king Artaxerxes gave to Esther all that belonged to Aman the slanderer

In the "diabolical" sense it seems always to refer to a single individual - the devil.  In the Septuagint, for example, Job refers continually to ό διάβολος (the devil).  This is also the case in the New Testament:

  Matthew 4:1

  Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου

  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

  Acts 10:38

  Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει, ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου

  how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil

  Ephesians 4:27

  μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ

  and give no opportunity to the devil.

Daimon and daimonion, on the other hand, are almost always used in the plural, and when not, the context implies that the word refers to one of many.  For example:

  Matthew 10:8

  ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε·

  Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

  John 10:21

  ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστι δαιμονιζομένου· μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοίγειν;

  Others said, “These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

  James 2:19

  σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστι· καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι καὶ φρίσσουσι.

  You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.

In the Vulgate Latin, the Greek διάβολος (diabolos) is almost always mirrored by the Latin diabolus in the New Testament.  δαιμόνιον (daimonion) is mirrored by the Latin daemonium.

In the Septuagint, diabolos translates the Hebrew שָׂטָן (śā·ṭān) - obviously the origin of our English word, "Satan".  On 36 occasions, the New Testament transliterates שָׂטָן into Greek (Σατανᾶς - Satanas); as in:

  Matthew 16:23

  ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπε τῷ Πέτρῳ· ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ·

  But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!"

In the Septuagint daimonion often translates שֵׁד (šēḏ), which means "evil spirit" - usually of the sort that is worshipped as a god.

Ambiguity between the two terms is in the English language, but not necessarily the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures.  The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines demon as "an evil spirit or devil" and devil as "an evil spirit; a demon".  Some English Bible translations use the two terms somewhat interchangeably.  The King James Bible, for example, translates all three Greek words (diabolos, daimon, daimonion) as "devil".  The RSV (and I presume the Catholic Edition RSV), on the other hand, seems to preserve the distinction and translate(s) diabolos as "devil" and daimon/daimonion as "demon".

The origin of and distinction between the devil (diabolos) and demons (daimonia) according to first millennium Chalcedonian Christian theology is explained in John of Damascus' (676-749) The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in Book II, ch.4, "Concerning the devil and demons", written sometime in the early 8th (or perhaps late 7th) century:

  He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.

(John of Damascus is considered a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman Catholic Church and an authoritative Church Father by Eastern Orthodox).

The Scriptural basis for these beliefs is summarized in one Orthodox dogmatic theology:

  According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning (I John 3: 8). The word “devil” means “slanderer.” Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirits or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he “abode not in the truth” and fell away from God. The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8: 44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2: 4).*

* M. Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p.153


Passage in Bible saying: Every morning I wake up a new person? There is a passage in the New Testament that says, I paraphrase:  Every morning I wake up a new person. Or: Every morning I am born a new man. I think Apostle Peter or Apostle Paul is speaking it. Can someone help me track the exact quote with textual reference? Thanks.

I believe you're thinking of 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)

  17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
  are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

It's not "every morning" but it is the passage that comes to mind with the teaching that we are made new.  It deals with out new relationship in Christ after salvation.

In the Old Testament, there is Lamentations 3:22-23 (KJV)

  22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his
  compassions fail not.

  23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.

If neither of these are what you're thinking of, you can search many versions of the Bible at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A22-23&version=KJV


Why isn't there a Joseph Smith Translation of Luke 23:43? According to the book True to the Faith, Luke 23:43 in the KJV of the Bible (and presumably many other translations of the Bible) was mistranslated.

  There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, ‘This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries. And Peter says he went and preached to the world of spirits (spirits in prison, I Peter, 3rd chap., 19th verse), so that they who would receive it could have it answered by proxy by those who live on the earth. (source)

Yet, there is no Joseph Smith Translation of Luke 23:43. Do we know why this is (i.e., if he knew that it was mistranslated, why didn't he at least note this in his translation of the Bible into English)?

A short answer is (probably not the only potential answer here), there is evidence that the Joseph Smith Translation manuscript had not yet quite reached a state that Joseph Smith felt comfortable to submit to be published before Joseph Smith was killed.  There is evidence Joseph Smith was working on the manuscript up until his death and ample evidence that he and other church leaders had every intention of publishing the new translation very soon, but that Joseph Smith was killed before declaring the manuscript ready to publish.  Thus, there is the possibility of what we now view as "missed retranslations" would have been included in the final manuscript and that the manuscript as we have it now is incomplete as far as what Joseph Smith would have had published.
Also, the first quote listed below, that Joseph Smith did not correct all the verses he could have corrected, for whatever reason.

Some articles on this subject.
From the December 1972 Ensign, an LDS church magazine, an article by Robert J. Matthews, Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture Brigham Young University states:

It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible.

An article from the 1980 Liahona (another church magazine) with no stated author says:

Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work.

And then a January 1983 Ensign article, again by Robert J. Matthews, provides even more details than either of the previous two articles on the subject of the possibly unfinished manuscript:

Although the Prophet states that the translation activity was “finished” on 2 July 1833, the manuscript was not ready to be given to a printer. During the remaining eleven years of his life he continued to revise and add to the text and to make other editorial refinements to prepare the document for printing.
...[I]n June 1844, the Prophet lay dead, felled by assassins’ bullets, and the JST was not yet published. The Doctrine and Covenants was nearly ready for a republication at the time of his death and came forth from the press in September 1844. The JST would probably have been next, but the Prophet had been unable to get it published. He worked diligently on it during the closing years of his life when time would permit.

Robert Matthews then (in the same article) provides context for how finished the manuscript likely was at the time Joseph Smith was killed.

There has been an assumption that the JST was deliberately not published because it was grossly unfinished. That assumption is not based on all of the facts. The epistles of the First Presidency and of the Twelve as published in the History of the Church and the Times and Seasons, some of which are cited in this article, lead to the unmistakable conclusion that the intention was to publish. ...The basic conclusion seems to be that the work of translation was acceptable as far as the Lord required it of the Prophet at that time, but the manuscript was not fully prepared for the press.
Perhaps one reason for the feeling about the “unfinished” nature of the JST has been a statement by President George Q. Cannon in his Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet: “We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet before his death had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time of which we write [2 February 1833].” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1958, p. 148.)
We note, however, that what is referred to is the nature of the translation as it existed in 1833. During the eleven years of his life after that time, the Prophet apparently did much of what he desired to do with the JST. The original manuscript tends to bear this out, since it shows an original draft and a later more complete revision, clarified in language and thought, and versed and punctuated. That the work was not perfected is clear. But it is equally clear that it was nearer the stage necessary for publication than casual observers have realized. We must also recognize that although the manuscript was ready for publication, this does not prevent more information from being added when the Lord desires to reveal it.


Did God create Earth as a temporary place of confinement for Lucifer and his Angels? I have often wondered if Earth was created not for man, but as a place of temporary confinement for Satan and his demons. That idea was provoked by,

Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

and;

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Since Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of Heaven it would mean that he was present to witness Revelation 12;7 thru 9.

It would also mean that he was present at creation since according to Revelation 12:9 Satan and his Demons were cast into the Earth, indicating that Creation must have progressed at minimum beyond Genesis 1:1.

Confinement to Earth would be about the same as confinement in Prison for them since they would no longer be free to roam endless space.

I have reviewed all those referenced questions, but do not feel that they adequately address  my particular enigma.

The world may be a place of confinement for the devils, in some sense, but it is primarily a place created for humans and for the glory of God. Perhaps your question was partly inspired by the famous lines from Marlowe's Faustus,

  FAUSTUS: Where are you damn'd?
  MEPHISTOPHELES: In hell.
  FAUSTUS: How comes it then, that thou art out of hell?
  MEPHISTOPHELES: Why, this is hell; nor am I out of it:
  Think'st thou that I, that saw the face of God,
  And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,
  Am not tormented with ten thousand hells
  In being depriv'd of everlasting bliss?

Hell as separation from God is a very common and orthodox concept. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica 1.64.4 ad 3), in the same way, says "Although the demons are not actually bound within the fire of hell while they are in this dark atmosphere, nevertheless their punishment is none the less; because they know that such confinement is their due." (Daemones licet non actu alligentur gehennali igni, dum sunt in aere isto caliginoso, tamen ex hoc ipso quod sciunt illam alligationem sibi deberi, eorum poena non diminuitur.) This reference to the "dark atmosphere" follows Augustine, after Paul in Ephesians 2:2 and 6:12.

However, Earth is certainly not identical with Hell. The various narratives of creation present the universe as a place formed and hallowed by God: it is "very good" in his sight (Genesis 1:31) and it is a home for humans and other creatures (see Psalm 104 for extended praise of God's handiwork and sovereign care). John proclaims that God "became flesh and lived among us" (John 1:14), literally "pitched his tent", as part of a constant Biblical theme of God choosing to become known in the world and making it "his" place. The preaching of Jesus is also full of positive references to the Earth's inhabitants, as in Matthew 6:26-29, from the Sermon on the Mount:

  Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.

An Earth which contains birds and lilies, beloved in their own way by God, is not a prison for devils. At other times, Jesus speaks of the world as a place occupied by evil powers:

  "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out." (John 12:31)
  "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father." (John 14:30-31)

The world does not rightly belong to the present "ruler of this world", but to God; Jesus came to liberate us from the lordship of evil. The Revelation culminates in "a new heaven and a new earth" (21:1), distinct from Hell which is thrown into "the lake of fire" (20:14). The new Earth is not an improved prison, but a new and better home for God and us: "The home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them" (21:3).

(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)


Why are there so many priests in the LDS Church? I don't have any hard number, but in most other churches, usually there are only a few priests per church (if they have priests). In the LDS Church on the other hand, usually almost half of the congregation is priests.

So, why does the the LDS Church have so many more priests than other Churches per congregation?

A priest in the LDS Church is a priesthood office to which young men are ordained at the age of 16, or adults who are still progressing to higher priesthood offices. Most men in the church will be ordained priests after ecclesiastical interviews with their leaders and through demonstrating faithful living. From D&C 20:

  60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.

A priest has responsibilities in the church to administer the sacrament, see that meetings are held regularly and in accordance with the Spirit, and to help take care of physical needs of the congregation:

  46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and
  baptize, and administer the sacrament,

  47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;

  50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
  expound, exhort, and baptize,

  51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion
  requires.

Oh, and priests are also typically educated in seminary, in areas where it is available. In most parts of the world, members who are high school age go to seminary class before or during school. Its a four year program of scripture and doctrine study. These classes are also for the young women.

Unlike other Christian denominations, a priest does not necessarily give a sermon on Sundays. Speakers are chosen by the local priesthood leaders and can be nearly anyone in the ward (local congregation).

I'm mobile now but if required I can cite some scriptures.