Does a Christian who commits sins against Christian doctrine and commandments still remain Christian? What is the position of the Christian denominations about whether a person who commits sins and lives un-Christian lifestyle, yet believes he is Christian, still remains Christian?

This question is motivated by the claim by user H3br3wHamm3r81 that a Christian who killed 10 people is not a Christian any more.

Per his request, this is a transcript of the relevant dialogue that occurred between us in another thread:

H3br3wHamm3r81's post:

  History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called "Christians" killed Jews in the name of Christ, realized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly.

My comment in response to H3br3wHamm3r81's post:

  "reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all" I think a question already appeared here whether people who claim to be Christians and commit sins remain Christians. I think the answer was positive. –Alixx

H3br3wHamm3r81's comment in response to my comment:

  So, X says, "I'm a Christian," and then he goes out and murders ten people." He's a Christian because he said so? I can hardly accept that. But, Anixx, I have answered and will let it rest. You're more than welcome to change your vote if a better answer comes along. God bless. – H3br3wHamm3r81

I personally thought that to be a Christian one only has to believe in Christ and that there are no sinless Christians, and that to achieve salvation of the soul one has to sincerely repent.

So who is more correct? Do Christians who sin remain Christians?

My Background: predominantly Southern Baptist.

Summary: you can have works without faith but not faith without works. Your faith saves you but your works are evidence of your faith. It isn't that your bad works take away your salvation, they just show that it was never there.

Ephesians 2:8-9, along with a number of other verses, clearly state that our faith saves us apart from our works.

  "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
  yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that
  no one may boast"

James 2:14-26 explains that our works demonstrate the existence of our faith. Just as Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. James also explains that faith isn't just an intellectual assent to facts but it is rather a decision to trust in those facts. He says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder". Satan believes in God, but he decided not to follow him. A human can believe that God exists but choose not to place his trust in Him.

Christians do sin, but it should be a struggle. Paul depicts this struggle in Romans 7:14:25 where he says, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate"(v15). We sin, but we hate it.

1 John 3 talks about this and can initially be confusing. Is says in verse 6, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him". After reading that chapter one could be left wondering who could ever be a christian. I think the key is verse 9 where it says, "No one who is born of God practices sin", with an emphasis on "practices". This chapter is talking about habitual sin. You will find this explanation in most commentaries that bring up the Greek verb tense means, "does not live a life style of habitual sin".

If you are looking to draw a line with which you can measure if someone is saved or not based on the quantity of sin in their life, then you will probably not find an answer. I used to struggle a lot with that. In the end I realized that I was asking the wrong question. How would an answer help me? Rather than asking, "how close can I get to the line", I realized that I should ask, "how close can I get to God". Then I started living for Him and forgot about the question.

So when you look at a life and you see habitual sin, it should reasonably make you doubt that person's faith and subsequent salvation. There could be people who have good works who don't have faith though. Since I am not God, and therefore do not know the hearts of men, I try not to judge that status of their eternal salvation. However, if their conduct makes me doubt, then I let that drive in me an urgency to make more sure of their salvation.

In conclusion, 2 Peter 1:5-11:

  "5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith
  supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6
  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control,
  perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your
  godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8
  For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you
  neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus
  Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted,
  having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore,
  brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling
  and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will
  never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal
  kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly
  supplied to you"


What is the difference between "Elder led" and "Elder ruled"? In the church government and polity documents (as well as the myriad of meta discussion on the internet) for various Protestant traditions it is common to find either the term "Elder led" or "Elder ruled". What is the difference between these two terms?

The most significant difference is in how new Elders come into office.

In an Elder Ruled church, existing ordained elders have the responsibility of finding or training equipped leadership and appointing them to office in the local church.
In an Elder Led church, the appointed Elder board may exercise spiritual oversight over the body but ultimately also serves at the pleasure of that body. The current Eldership may bring a recommendation for new appointments, but it is the congregations responsibility to elect them to the board.

The latter concept is actually a variant on congregationalism, in which the final say in major matters (e.g calling a pastor, changing the budget) is put in the hands of the whole church by means of a vote, usually having heard a recommendation from the Elders. On the other hand the Elder board is given authority to handle smaller issues without consulting the congregation. Examples of Elder Led Congregationalism are most "community" churches, many Evangelical churches (including most of the EFCA).

On the other hand Elder Rule tends to be found in in traditions with more ecclesiastical structure, especially Presbyterianism and most Reformed churches.

Bonus: Notably for being absent from my examples above is the Baptist tradition. While "traditionally" most Baptist denominations employ some form of Elder Led Congregationalism, there is also a wide enough variety in what this means and how it is implemented to make them hard to broadly categorize. In recent history, many churches with otherwise baptist doctrine have adopted a much less congregationalist and much more Elder Rule system.


What was the amount of bread and wine used when Jesus did communion? I could imagine that times then were hard and food somewhat scarce. A whole loaf of bread divided equally would be a small meal and a bottle of wine could serve well to wash down the bread. I could not imagine that Jesus would only give a tiny peace of cracker and a thimble of grape juice.

Are there any historical writings that mention the actual quantity of these that Jesus had portioned?
How much did Jesus have himself?

It would have actually been a pretty lavish meal. It was Pesach. That means it was the "seder" for Passover, the communal dinner to celebrate that Feast day. It is the only feast day that is celebrated, to this day, at home. That is, in someone's home or homelike setting. A Passover Seder is one of the primary Feasts (MoAdim) Moshe (Moses) laid out in the Torah, that is the first 5 books of what is now called the Old Testament scriptures (of the Jews, Messianics and Christians).

Jews (remember, Jesus was a Jew and was then still in complete obedience to the Mosaic law) saved up all year, and many still do, for that feast meal. Family came from all around, even other lands, and it was one of 3 "pilgrim" feast days in that the adult males had to go to Jerusalem to observe, if they could. That's why Jesus had someone go and find the man who had "prepared" for them "the meal." Passover is always done with matzah and wine. Matzah is just the hebrew word for unleavened bread. Y'shua (Jesus) served that day and the next as "'the Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world,'" just as John the Baptizer said of him, and also as the First Fruits (of the New Covenant). See Hebrews 13:11-16:

  The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. 15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.


Looking for Nanjing Mandarin Colloquial version (南京官话译本) of the New Testament The Nanking Mandarin Colloquial Version (南京官话译本) of the entire New Testament (新约全书) was, supposedly, released in 1860~1861.
It was translated by Walter Henry Medhurst (麦都思) and Wang Tao (王韬) and published by The London Missionary Society Press (墨海书馆).
It seems to be the only "Southern Mandarin" translation that exists, which is referred to on Wikipedia's List of Chinese Bible translations page:

Mandarin Chinese
Southern Mandarin
New Testament, 1856

I think Matthew was released in earlier, hence the disparity in dates.

I've checked Chinese websites for you and was able to find the following page where you can type in the chapter numbers and read the image of the copy of the book (in Chinese).
http://hb.fhl.net/gbdoc/ob/ro.php?book=90&procb=1
Which it helps!


Assuming young-earth creationism, could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science? I some times wonder when God made the garden, to beautify it, the trees for example must have been differing height and width.  Therefore, assuming a literal 7 day creation, if Adam were to cut a tree, the day after he was created, would he have found thick trees with several rings?

Would Adam really be able to determine how old the world was studying rocks, trees, etc.? Was science prevented from ever understanding creation by virtue of its incomprehensible design on day one?

Would a rock's radioactive print seem like a billions years old, when only one day old? How would a fully created universe seem like a day old? Would not some things appear to have started motion long ago to reach the place where they were created?

That is a lot of questions but it is really one: 'Could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?'

For the sake of not getting into an argument, let's assume a genesis / biblical creation, literal/YEC-style. The "trees/rings" thing is pretty much unanswerable, but fortunately we don't even need to know anything about the garden of Eden / Adam, because what we do have is the light from other stars, for which we have good confidence for the distance / trajectory / etc. Under the laws of physics, the light has been travelling for many millions of years (indeed, the Hubble experts claim to have light from one 13 billion years ago).

This leaves us two conclusions inside a YEC/literal genesis:

the universe was made fully "with age", so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to "age" it (see also, Last Thursdayism)
the laws of physics have been significantly changed, so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to "age" it

(or of course the option that Genesis is not a reliable source of creation information)


What is the Biblical basis for sharing the cup at communion? In our church everyone usually drinks out of the same cup at communion. Is there a scriptural reason for this?

There are two main reasons:

Most Christians want to think of themselves as continuing the same practices as the early church did and even the very Last Supper itself. Because they shared one cup in the Jewish Passover, so many Christians think it is most appropriate to share one cup now.

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians which describes the emblems of communion as symbols of Christian unity. Though it explicitly only says that the bread is one, it's easy to see how the meaning would also apply to the cup.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (NIV): Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


Why did Jesus compare one born of the Spirit to the wind? At John 3:8 (RSVCE) we see Jesus saying:

  "The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

I often wondered at the statement of Jesus that one would never know where the wind came from. The wind, in a common man's language is understood to be coming from ' east, west, south or north' and going in just the opposite direction. One seldom cares for the origin of wind, which even science finds difficult to trace. My question therefore is: what are the qualities that Jesus wanted to attribute to the one born of the Spirit while comparing him/her to the wind ? What are the views of the Catholic Church on the comparison?

John 3 is the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus about baptism. Ignatius of Antioch writes about this verse:

  "For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes..." The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chapter 7

So, according to Ignatius, the wind is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit knows from whence He comes and where He is going. Indeed, the Greek word used for wind in the verse is πνεῦμα (pneuma, breath or wind), which is the same word used throughout the New Testament for the Holy Spirit. It is therefore clear that Jesus is speaking about the Holy Spirit when He speaks about the wind.

We too know where the Holy Spirit comes from: He "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Nicene Creed). And we know where the Holy Spirit is going (i.e. what He is doing): He "calls alongside" us as the Paraclete, pointing us to Christ and His gifts of life and salvation. He is sent by the Father in Christ's name, teaching us all things and bringing to our remembrance all that Christ has said to us (John 14:26). Thus, the baptized child of God who has the Holy Spirit and has been born again knows where the wind comes from (from the Father and the Son) and follows where the wind is leading (to the Father through the Son).

When Jesus tells Nicodemus (not yet a baptized believer) that he does not know where the wind comes from and where it goes, He means that Nicodemus should seek to understand the source and work of the Holy Spirit and follow his guidance to Christ by means of baptism.


What kind of ecclesiastical structure did Ignatius of Antioch discuss in his epistles? There are approximately seven "genuine" epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. I'm curious to know what kind of ecclesiastical structure he mentions in his epistles. If he discussed it, in what ways was it similar to and different from the ecclesiastical structure of today's Roman Catholic Church?

Francis A. Sullivan S.J devotes some 23 pages (pages 103-125) in From Apostles to Bishops to the letters of Ignatius.  Five of the seven letter credited to Ignatius were written to churches in the Roman province of Asia, and each of these communities had a bishop. On page 105, Sullivan says that the Letter to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was the only letter that Ignatius actually addressed to a bishop. This is clear evidence that by the time of Ignatius (ca. 115 CE), bishops were being appointed in at least some cities in the eastern Mediterranean. There is a clear hierarchy in these letters, with deacons subject to presbyters and to the bishop, presbyters subject to the bishop, and the bishop receiving his authority from the Father, the "Bishop of all" (page 109).

Francis A. Sullivan S.J says, in page 107, that in Ephesians 3.2, Ignatius refers to "bishops appointed throughout the world," but says that most scholars now doubt whether in the time of Ignatius, bishops like him had been appointed "throughout the world."

Ignatius makes no mention of a bishop or presbyters in his Letter to the Romans, with his appeal directed to the whole community. On page 111, Sullivan says we can draw no conclusions from the absence of any mention of a bishop of Rome in this letter, although Sullivan elsewhere discusses the broader evidence that bishops had not yet been appointed in Rome. Ignatius was himself a bishop, as he refers to himself as the "bishop of Syria" in the Letter to the Romans. It is unclear from this whether other cities in Syria had yet begun to appoint their own bishops.

To provide context for the church hierarchy of which Ignatius was writing, Sullivan says (page 14) that a bishop is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. He says there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of the apostles ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop. Sullivan goes on to say (page 15) the letters of Ignatius are the first Christian documents that witness to the presence of a bishop who is clearly distinct from the presbyterate, but this evidence is certain only for Antioch and several churches of western Asia Minor.

In the salutation of the Letter to the Romans, Ignatius refers to the Roman church "presides in the place of the district of the Romans ... and presiding over love." Sullivan says older Catholic scholars have seen here a recognition of the primacy of the church of Rome over the church throughout the Roman world, but says the word translated
"district" (chorion) means a limited area such as a city or town.


What did God make the universe from? What did God make the universe from? It seems Himself, since before Creation, only God is.

This seems to me to be the most important question for Christianity. NOT why, how, where or who, but what. From what outside or within Himself, could God have made the universe?

As science suggests, the physical universe of time, space, and matter is not eternal.  It had a beginning.  Thus it was created.  It was not arranged or mixed or reassembled, but created out of nothing.

Genesis 1 repeatedly uses the phrase, "God said, 'Let there be...', and there was...".  God spoke, and what previously did not exist began to exist.  So, specifically, God did not make the universe from anything at all.

Indeed, God did not make the physical universe from Himself, because He Himself is outside the physical universe.  In fact, God is spirit.  This is in contrast to the idea of pantheism.

In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, we read this:

  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
  so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This ex nihilo power is reserved to God alone.  All other creations that mankind does is simply to take what is already made and rearrange it into another form.  We never really "make a cake"--we merely assemble ingredients into a different form.


In Catholicism, is the Eucharist observed during funerals? First off I know next to nothing about Christianity.  Well, I do know that Catholics have more traditions and ceremonies than Protestants do, and I know about Eucharist.  What I didn't know is that Eucharist is used during funeral ceremonies too.  A Buddhist classmate told me he recently attended the funeral of his boss (he did not know about the boss's religion but was told the funeral was held at church and he felt it would be a kind thing if he attended).  But he told me that he did not know anybody there and there was lots of chanting and at some point the priest started administering Eucharist and people were lining up and he started freaking out because he doesn't drink and he did not want to be impolite either so he kind of just left!

I told him I doubt anybody would have forced him and maybe they don't even use wine anyways, but anyhow, though I was aware of Eucharist during regular mass, I was not aware that they also do it during funeral.  Can someone explain to me its significance during funeral or if it's shared by all Catholics?  Thanks.

A funeral Mass is a common practice

A Mass is by definition a Eucharistic Celebration

As @AthanasiusOfAlex pointed out, a funeral is not required to be conducted in the form of the Mass, but for Catholics it is a common practice. (Anecdote: In the past five years, I've been to nine Catholic funerals, and all were celebrated as funeral Masses). In the case where a deacon, rather than a priest, is the clergyman present for the funeral, a funeral would not be performed as a Mass.

  As ministers of Sacrament, deacons baptize, lead the faithful in
  prayer, witness marriages, and conduct wake and funeral services. (Source = US Conference of Catholic Bishops)

There are also certain days that a funeral Mass will not be held, Holy Thursday through Holy Saturday included.  (Thanks @Eques and @AthanasiusofAlex)

When the funeral rite takes that form, it is worth remembering that a funeral Mass is still a Mass, which is a Eucharistic celebration.  When celebrated as a Mass, it follows the usual form of the Mass -- Liturgy of the Word followed by Liturgy of the Eucharist -- which includes receiving Communion for those who are Catholic, and who are not under the burden of mortal sin.  During the second half (after the homily) the liturgy of the Eucharist includes the celebrant offering and the faithful receiving the Body of Christ and the Most Precious Blood of Christ.

There are a number of references in the 3d edition of the Roman Missal that provide additional guidance and instructions to the clergy concerning the funeral Mass (a word search finds 26 separate uses of the word "funeral"), none of which make particular mention of Communion.  On pages 1371 and 1372 of the linked version are some recommended prayers for the occasion of a funeral Mass.

Your friend was worried for no reason, however, being unfamiliar and even puzzled with the Roman rite is not uncommon for those who do not usually attend Catholic Mass.  It is not surprising that he wasn't completely at ease with a celebration foreign to his tradition and practice.  (When I attended my first few Masses, before I became a part of the Church, it took a bit of getting used to).

Funerals are for the living, so the best one can do at such an occasion is to be respectful of the family and friends of the deceased, and to be as polite and kind as possible.


According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now? According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now?

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is among us on Earth.
Catholics believe that God the Father listens to our prayers and intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

But what is Jesus doing?

The most relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to be 662 and 664.  The first focuses on Christ's priestly ministry:

  Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him". As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.

Through the prayer of his people, Jesus is in communion with his body, and acts as their priest, hearing their prayers and interceding on their behalf. (cf. CCC 2565)

Section 664 deals with Christ's rule over his kingdom:

  Being seated at the Father's right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man: "To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." After this event the apostles became witnesses of the "kingdom [that] will have no end".

Thus, according to the catechism, the two primary activities of Christ during his session are a) intercession as our high priest and b) ruling over his kingdom.


What is "dominion theology"? I've read a little bit about "dominion theology", and don't feel I understand it. What distinguishes this movement from mainstream modern Christianity?

Dominion Theology is the belief that society should be governed exclusively by Christian Laws, whether or not all of the people in that society are Christians. It is very much a minority view within Christianity, which has traditionally believed in dual secular and ecclesiatical authorities, even in times and places where Christianity has been the dominant or state religion.

For example, even at the height of Christian dominance in Europe, Kings were permitted and expected to make laws for their subjects and enforce them, apart from church law.

The name "Dominion Theology" is derived from Genesis 1:28, where God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.

See Wikipedia and its references for more detail.


According to the Catholic Church, when Jesus speaks, is he is speaking as a Man or God or both? I want to know if there is an official Catholic ruling on the quotes that occur in the New Testament.

The belief is that Jesus is both 100% Man and 100% God.

So when we come across a direct quote from Jesus in the Gospels, do we take it as the speech of a mere human being or as the speech of God?

For example, I heard that Professor James R. White says that when Jesus was asked when the hour was, and he didn't know, and said only the Father knows ("But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - Mark 13:32, NIV), this is because Jesus, as God, "emptied himself" of that knowledge.   From this understanding it means that his quotes in the New Testament are seen as divine speech, and not the speech of a human.

Is there an official Catholic stance on this specific question?

TL;DR

In short, when Jesus spoke, he did so as both man and God. However, his speech was an action of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.

Regarding the passages that seem to imply a subordination of Jesus to the Father, there is no “official” way to interpret them, but any interpretation must, of course, be consistent with the dogma of the perfect equality and consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Persons of the Father and the Son.

Background: Jesus Christ is true God and true man

As other posters have correctly mentioned, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Divine Person of the Word (or Son), and that, through the Incarnation, he assumed a human nature. (In this, the Catholic Church shares the exact same faith as all the Eastern Orthodox churches). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man (no. 464).

A full treatment of dyophysism (the orthodox view that Christ has two natures) is given in numbers 464-483.

What is a “nature”?

A word must be said about the terms “nature” (Greek: physis) and “Person” (Greek: hypostasis) which are borrowed from Aristotelian philosophy.

“Nature” (physis) in Aristotelian philosophy is a synonym for “essence”  or “substance” (ousia, or more precisely, to ti en einai), which means “what a thing is simply because it exists”—in other words, a being that is both concrete and independent, as opposed to an accident or a constituent principle. (See Metaphysics 7, 3.)

Aristotle, however, calls essence physis when he considers it as the origin of of a thing’s actions. A man’s human nature is what produces his speech, his movements, and his thoughts—all of the actions (both spiritual and corporeal) characteristic of a man. (See Metaphysics 5, 5.)

Synthetically, “nature” (along with “essence” and “substance”) answers the question “What is it?” but the term emphasizes the role of the substance as origin of action.

Hence, when the Church Fathers asserted that Christ possesses a perfect human nature, they were simply saying that Jesus is man, and possesses every aspect of manhood (a human body and a human soul, with the capacites that go with them: intellect, will, and all the bodily capacities). Moreover, this human nature is what produced all of the actions that are charistic of human beings (human knowledge, human love, speech, laughter, eating, drinking, sleeping, and so on).

Likewise, when they assered that Christ posseses a Divine Nature, they mean that he is also fully God. That Divine Nature, moreover, is the origin of all the actions characteristic of God: creation, redemption, forgiveness of sins, miracles, and so on.

What is “Person” (“Hypostasis”)?

In Greek philosophy, hypostasis is the term that emphasizes the concreteness of a thing. Whereas “nature” and “essence” can sometimes (as a secondary meaning) be used as generic terms—just as even in modern parlance “human nature” can refer to what all human beings have in common—“hypostasis” always refers to the concrete individual. (See Summa theologiae Ia, q. 29, a. 2.)

In Trinitarian theology, the term hypostasis was assumed by the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa) to refer to what Western Christians call the Persons of the Trinity.

A Person or Hypostasis is a subject who can refer to himself as “I” and can answer the question “Who?”

It took some time for the Church to understand that the Hypostasis of the Word (or Son) is the very same Hypostasis of Jesus Christ (CCC 468).

Communicatio idiomatum

When we ask, “What is Jesus Christ?” the answer is, “God and man.” However, when we say “Who is Jesus Christ?” the correct answer is “God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity.”

Because his human nature is so closely united to his Divine Person—a union we call the hypostatic union, because the principle of unity is the very Person (Hypostasis) of the Word—we can attribute with all properness every one of Jesus’s actions to either one of his natures.

For example, it is perfectly correct to say “Jesus the man created the universe.” Likewise, it is perfectly correct to say “God spoke to the crowds in parables” or even “God died on the Cross on Good Friday.” This is possible because there is only one personal subject in Jesus: the Person (Hypostasis) of the Son.

This common attribution is what the Church Fathers called the communicatio idiomatum (which could be translated as the “communion of properties”).

However (recalling that nature is always the origin of a thing’s actions), Jesus’ actions originate from different natures.

Jesus the man created the universe, certainly, but he did it through his Divine Nature. God spoke and even died, but He did so in His human nature.

Jesus spoke as God and as man

In summary—and responding to the original question—Jesus Christ certainly spoke as both God and man.

He spoke as God, because he is a Divine Person, and that Person is the only personal subject in him. He spoke as man, because he possesses a complete human nature (including human body, human soul, and all the capacities proper to a man).

However, when he spoke, the origin of his speech—what directly produced the speech—was his human nature. Of course what he revealed in that speech came from his Divine Nature.

(Note that the ultimate origin of Christ’s human nature and the actions produced by it is, of course, his Divine Nature, because even Christ’s human nature—not his Divine nature!—was created.)

Regarding passages that seem to imply subordination

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even … the Son (Mt. 24:36)

Although there are many possibilites, the most plausible explanation for this saying (in my opinion) is that it was a Semitic hyperbole. In essence, Jesus is emphasizing (for modern audiences, to a ridiculous degree) that under no circumstanes will he reveal the day or the hour of his Second Coming.

Hence, this saying is to be taken figuratively. It is not intended to be a theological assertion about the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, nor of the degree to which Jesus in his human nature shares in divine knowledge.

In other words, in my opinion, Jesus did know, but refused to reveal it.

In this opinion, I am following that of the of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament. (See the footnote for Matthew 24:36.)

The Father is greater than I (John 14:28)

This could be understood in two plausible ways:

Jesus is referring to his current condition, in which he voluntarily “empties himself” (in the words of Phil. 2:7) by taking on a human nature. He will do greater works when he ascends into heaven. In other words, he is saying, in essence, “The Father is greater than I, as you are seeing me now, in my human nature.” (Keep in mind that in general Jesus chose not to use precise theologial or philosophical language.)
When Jesus says the Father is “greater,” he is referring to the order of the Persons in the Trinity, not their consubstantiality. It is true that the Father is first, being the ultimate origin of the Processions.

As is typical in the Gospel of John, he may very well have meant both things at once.

(Again, I took this interpretation from the commentary on this verse found in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.)


Was eternal life promised by the Mosaic Law? John 3:16 (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
  only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
  eternal life.

The New Testament clearly tells us how one can attain salvation or eternal life.

What about Old Testament? Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal life?

How can we understand this verse?

  Matthew 19:16 (NIV)
  Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing
  must I do to get eternal life?”

If the rich man was a Jew, he must have known how to attain eternal life from the Torah.

Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the
  Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal
  life?

No.  Eternal life is foretold in the Old Testament, but never as a promise associated to obedience to Mosaic Law.

The following verses refer to life after death, hinting at the eternal nature of life.   This explains the how the man in Matthew 19:16 knew about eternal life.

All are NIV.

  Psalm 71:20

  Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will
  restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again
  bring me up.

  Isaiah 26:19

  But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the
  dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the
  morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

  Ezekiel 37:12-14

  12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign
  Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up
  from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you,
  my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and
  bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will
  live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that
  I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

And one that clearly teaches everlasting life as part and parcel with resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2

  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

However, these are prophetic or poetic works, not books of the Law.  I'm not aware of any teachings on eternal life in the Pentateuch - this first five books, which are commonly referred to as the "books of the Law".  Technically, those are "The Law of Moses" or "Mosaic Law", so it would seem that the answer to your question is "no" if you wish to be that precise, but there are Old Testament teachings/revelations/writings on it.

From a traditional Sola Fide perspective, you wouldn't expect it to, though.

Most of the Mosaic laws talked about consequences or punishment for sin, along with a few promises of reward for obedience.

However, Scripture clearly teaches that eternal life is not earned through obedience to the Law.   It is a gift from God, not of works.  (Ephesians 2:9.) We are not justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

If the Mosaic Law promised eternal life based on obedience to the Law, the entire message of Christianity would be invalidated.


What significance do Catholics see in the fact that Adam and Eve 'knew each other' only after original sin? From a Catholic perspective, what can be said about the fact that Adam and Eve 'knew each other' only after original sin?

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica question "Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?" sheds some light on this. St. Thomas quotes a chapter of Gregory of Nyssa entitled "What we must answer to those who raise the question—'If procreation is after sin, how would souls have come into being if the first of mankind had remained sinless?'," who

  says (De Hom. Opif. [On the Making of Man] xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the Divine Power. He adds that God made man male and female before sin, because He foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which He foresaw.

Yet, according to St. Thomas, "this is unreasonable" because

  what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. Now it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life, which he possessed even before sin, as above explained (Question [97], Article [3]), just as it is natural to other perfect animals, as the corporeal members make it clear. So we cannot allow that these members would not have had a natural use, as other members had, before sin.

St. Thomas also quotes St. Augustine's De Civ. Dei [City of God] xiv, 26:

  We must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. All the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body.

Thus, there is nothing sinful about sexual intercourse itself, nor is it the result of sin.

More to the point of your question is the objection St. Thomas poses in the same article:

  Objection 2: Further, our first parents were created at the age of perfect development. Therefore, if generation by coition had existed before sin, they would have had intercourse while still in paradise: which was not the case according to Scripture (Gn. 4:1 ["…Adam knew Eve his wife…" after the fall]).

to which he replies with St. Augustine's opinion:

  Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. [Literal Interpretation of Genesis] ix, 4), our first parents did not come together in paradise, because on account of sin they were ejected from paradise shortly after the creation of the woman; or because, having received the general Divine command relative to generation, they awaited the special command relative to time.

Here's the original Latin of St. Augustine with the translations from here:

  Quare primi parentes in paradiso non coierint.[Why was there no nuptial union in Paradise?]

  Cur ergo non coierunt, nisi cum exiissent de paradiso? Cito responderi potest: Quia mox creata muliere, prius quam coirent, facta est illa transgressio, cuius merito in mortem destinati, etiam de loco illius felicitatis exierunt. Non enim Scriptura tempus expressit, quantum interfuerit inter eos factos, et ex eis natum Cain.[Why, then, did they not have intercourse until they had left Paradise? The reason is that soon after the creation of the woman, before they had relations, they committed the sin because of which they were destined to die and because of which they went forth from the place of their blessedness. As a matter of fact, Scripture has not specified the length of time between their creation and the birth of their son Cain.]

  Potest etiam dici quia nondum Deus iusserat ut coirent. Cur enim non ad hanc rem divina exspectaretur auctoritas, ubi nulla concupiscentia tamquam stimulus inobedientis carnis urgebat? Ideo autem hoc non iusserat Deus, quia secundum suam praescientiam disponebat omnia, in qua et eorum casum procul dubio praesciebat, unde iam mortale genus propagandum esset humanum.[One might also say that the delay was due to the fact that God had not yet ordered them to come together in nuptial union. For why should they not await God's authorization for this, since there was no drive of concupiscence coming from rebellious flesh? God had not ordered such a union because He provided for everything in the light of His foreknowledge, in which He undoubtedly foresaw their fall, as a result of which the human race was to be generated as a mortal race.²²]²²[Translator's note: "I understand mortale as a predicate adjective referring back to genus humanum."]


Where is this C.S. Lewis quote from? Talking to a friend, he wrote:

  In the words (approximate) of C.S. Lewis, "Everytime a man sleeps with a woman, it creates a bit more of a spiritual connection that must be either eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."

This sounds like Lewis - but where is it from?

It's from The Screwtape Letters, letter XVIII.

  The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.

In context, Screwtape is telling Wormwood that the "one flesh" analogy in the Bible refers not to some romantic notion of "being in love," but rather to copulation itself. Of course, Screwtape, being a demon, is admonishing Wormwood that he can help people "forget" such things in order to give in to their desires of the flesh.


What is the meaning in the Bible for the "Branch"? In the Bible in Zechariah 3:8-10, 6:12-13, Isaiah 4:2-3 mention the Branch. What are they talking about?

Jesus is prophetically referred to as "the branch of David" (Is 11:1) and a "branch from the roots of Jesse" (Jer 33:15).

In general, "branch" can refer to offspring and "root" to parents (think "family tree"). Children can be referred to as "fruit" ("be fruitful", "fruit of the womb", "house of Judah ... bear fruit", "fruit of my body")


Born of water and of the Spirit John 3:5-7
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Knowing the 120 were born of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and that no one can enter into the Kingdom without a new birth, and aware that His disciples had no commission to baptize until after the Resurrection, where were the disciples born of the Water?

Born of water here is not necessarily referring to baptism, but when considering the context of the surrounding verses would seem to be referring to the natural birth. In other words, We are first born a natural birth and then those who receive the Holy Spirit are born a second time with a spiritual birth. It follows then that every human is born of water, but those who have been born again are not only born of water, but also the Spirit. Not everyone is born again, but only those who are born of the Spirit.

When looking at any verse in the scriptures it is important to consider the context in which it is written. Verse 5 is talking about two births and it is further explained in verse 6 when it says: "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Again, there are two births mentioned here, not just one. The first birth is a fleshly birth and the second birth a spiritual birth.


C.S. Lewis and Transposition Is anyone aware of a precedent of C.S. Lewis' Transposition in Christian thought (Transposition is an essay found in The Weight of Glory that describes how richer content can be described in a less rich medium: e.g., how heaven is described using merely earthly elements)? Was he the one who first used the word in this sense?

In pre-Christian thought, Plato and his Theory of Forms is the most obvious antecedent of C.S. Lewis's theory of Transposition. This likely made its way into Christianity especially through the influence of the Neoplatonists. However, I will leave it to someone with more specific knowledge of Plato and Neoplatonism to trace that influence on Christianity in general, and on C.S. Lewis in particular.
A more recent precedent, within Christian thought, is Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) and his Doctrine of Correspondence.
Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Swedenborg
Swedenborg himself undoubtedly drew on Plato's theory of forms in conceiving and formulating his doctrine of correspondence. Some contemporary scholars consider Swedenborg to be a Neoplatonist, based in part upon the clear kinship between Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence and Plato's theory of forms. See, for example, "Jung and Swedenborg: modern Neoplatonists," by Mats Winther.
Swedenborg is also known to have read at least one Neoplatonic work: Pseudo-Aristotle, On the More Secret Part of Divine Wisdom according to the Egyptians. The last regular entry in Swedenborg's notebook of quotes from and commentary on various classical and contemporary thinkers, published as A Philosopher's Notebook (Philadelphia, PA: Swedenborg Scientific Association, 1931, p. 508-511) is a laudatory notice of this particular Neoplatonic work.
Swedenborg's Doctrine of Correspondence
However, as pointed out in the above paper by Mats Winther, and in my discussion about it with the author on Reddit here, Swedenborg developed the concept of a "correspondence" between spiritual and material things into a much more complex and sophisticated doctrine than the more general one that existed in Plato's philosophy and among the Neoplatonists.
In Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence, every material object, and even every material force and action, down to its tiniest detail, is a precise expression on the physical level of some corresponding spiritual object, force, or action. While it may lack what we might call the "resolution" of its spiritual correspondent, at the lower level of "resolution" possible on the material level of reality, it is a completely faithful representation of the spiritual entity that is its correspondent and cause.
Here is one of Swedenborg's own definitions of "correspondence" as he uses the term:

First, I need to state what correspondence is. The whole natural world is responsive to the spiritual world—the natural world not just in general, but in detail. So whatever arises in the natural world out of the spiritual one is called "something that corresponds." It needs to be realized that the natural world arises from and is sustained in being by the spiritual world, exactly the way an effect relates to its efficient cause. (Heaven and Hell #89)

This concept—that everything in the natural, or material world reflects, not just generally, but in detail higher, spiritual realities—is so fundamental to and pervasive in Swedenborg's theology that he uses it not only to explain how God forms both the spiritual and material universes as finite expressions of the infinite nature of God, but also to interpret the Bible as a book in which God has expressed higher, spiritual realities in material world stories, events, and metaphors. Correspondence is also the key to Swedenborg's solution for the classic "mind-body problem," or how the human mind relates to and expresses itself in the body.
C.S. Lewis and Swedenborg
It is unknown (to me, anyway) just how much of Swedenborg's works, and thought, C.S. Lewis read, and was aware of. However, Lewis mentions Swedenborg several times in his writings, so we know at minimum that Lewis had some knowledge of Swedenborg. Further, Swedenborg is considered one of the primary sources of Lewis's book The Great Divorce (see the "Sources" section on its Wikipedia page).
Given how central the doctrine of correspondence is to Swedenborg's system, it is highly unlikely that Lewis did not have some familiarity with it. It very likely that even though Swedenborg did not use the word "transposition," Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence was one of the sources for Lewis's idea of transposition.
In fact, in his sermon or essay "Transposition" (available online in a Gutenberg text version here), Lewis several times uses Swedenborg's term, "correspondence," in describing the relationship between higher and lower order realities that he calls "transposition."
It should be said, however, that despite fairly clear lines of influence of Swedenborg on C.S. Lewis, Lewis did not consider Swedenborg's claimed spiritual-world experiences to be genuine, and remained skeptical and dismissive of Swedenborg's overall theological system.
"Correspondence" in Lewis's essay on Transposition
In fact, reading Lewis's "Transposition" essay from the perspective of a Swedenborg scholar, I suspect that Lewis was specifically attempting to distinguish his "transposition" idea from Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence in precisely the locations where he uses Swedenborg's term. For example, Lewis writes:

Where we tend to go wrong is in assuming that if there is to be a correspondence between two systems it must be a one for one correspondence—that A in the one system must be represented by a in the other, and so on. But the correspondence between emotion and sensation turns out not to be of that sort. And there never could be correspondence of that sort where the one system was really richer than the other. If the richer system is to be represented in the poorer at all, this can only be by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. The transposition of the richer into the poorer must, so to speak, be algebraical, not arithmetical. If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense. If you are to write a language with twenty-two vowel sounds in an alphabet with only five vowel characters then you must be allowed to give each of those five characters more than one value. If you are making a piano version of a piece originally scored for an orchestra, then the same piano notes which represent flutes in one passage must also represent violins in another. (emphasis added)

And a little later in the essay, along similar lines:

I am not going to maintain that what I call Transposition is the only possible mode whereby a poorer medium can respond to a richer: but I claim that it is very hard to imagine any other. It is therefore, at the very least, not improbable that Transposition occurs whenever the higher reproduces itself in the lower. Thus, to digress for a moment, it seems to me very likely that the real relation between mind and body is one of Transposition. We are certain that, in this life at any rate, thought is intimately connected with the brain. The theory that thought therefore is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words "true" or "false". We are driven then to some kind of correspondence. But if we assume a one-for-one correspondence this means that we have to attribute an almost unbelievable complexity and variety of events to the brain. But I submit that a one-for-one relation is probably quite unnecessary. All our examples suggest that the brain can respond—in a sense, adequately and exquisitely correspond—to the seemingly infinite variety of consciousness without providing one single physical modification for each single modification of consciousness. (emphasis added)

Lewis must here be critiquing some other line of thinking about this "transposition" or "correspondence." And given his liberal use of Swedenborg's term in these specific locations (he uses it in only one other place in the entire essay), and his likely knowledge of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence as a very precise relationship between spiritual and material things, Swedenborg's doctrine—and the Swedenborgians who hold to it—are Lewis's most likely whipping boy in his criticisms here of a "one-for-one correspondence."
It would go beyond the purview of the question to mount a full defense of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence from Lewis's apparent attack upon it here. Suffice it to say that Swedenborg was well aware that spiritual things can never be fully expressed on the material level for the simple reason that material reality is cruder, or in today's terminology, has a "lower resolution," than spiritual reality.
The relevant point for the purposes of the question is that Lewis seems here to be responding to Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence. This suggests that Swedenborg's doctrine on that subject was indeed one of the precedents in Lewis's mind as he formulated his idea of transposition, and composed his essay on that subject.
Conclusion
Certainly Plato and the Neoplatonists were a major precedent of and influence on C.S. Lewis's theory of Transposition. This line of influence will have to remain for another person to trace in more detail.
In more recent Christian history, Emanuel Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence is a clear precedent. Swedenborg did not use the term "transposition" to describe his doctrine. However, the parallelism with Lewis's concept of transposition is clear and compelling. And there is every reason to believe that Lewis was quite cognizant of Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondence as he formulated his thinking and penned his essay on "Transposition."


How were the old saints justified under the law? (Catholic and Protestant views) How were the old saints like Moses and the prophets justified under the law? Were they justified by keeping the law? What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant views on this? Explain with Biblical references.

This question concerns the technical aspect of salvation that is justification or being right with God. The ability of Mosaic law to give life, and the ability of old saints to obey the law.

Revelation 13:8 says:

  The Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

It seems that God viewed the cross as an event beyond space and time.

If we read Hebrews 9:12-15, we can see and link together the three "eternals". The Lord accomplished an eternal redemption. By offering up Himself to God through the eternal Spirit, we have obtained an eternal inheritance.

It seems that the redemption of Christ has the divine eternal nature through the Spirit to transcend time in redeeming those who were thousands of years before Him as well as those who are thousands of years after Him. In other words, even if the world goes on for millions of years, Christ's redemption is still effective.

Watchman Nee, in his book, Fact, Faith, and Experience, says:

  If the blood of bulls and goats was not able to remove sin, as we
  mentioned earlier, how then were those in the Old Testament saved? It
  was by the cross. Man had sinned. Hence, only a man could accomplish
  the redemption of sin. Although the animals were innocent, and
  although they were without blemish, they could not redeem man from his
  sins. Why then did God promise in Leviticus 17 that the blood of
  creatures was able to redeem one from sin? There must be some very
  profound meaning here. The things of the law "are a shadow of the
  things to come, but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:17). Hence, the
  sacrifices and the offerings in the Old Testament all refer to Christ.
  Although Christ had not yet died at the time of the first covenant,
  God intended that all the sacrifices offered at that time be a type of
  Christ. Their death was taken as the death of Christ. Through the
  blood of many animals, God saw the blood of His beloved Son. Through
  many bulls and goats, He saw "the Lamb of God." Through the many
  sacrifices, He saw the substitutional death of Christ. When He
  accepted those offerings, it was as if He was accepting the merit of
  the death of His Son. Because of this, man was redeemed from his sins.
  God reckoned the innocent bulls and goats as His dear Son. Hence, He
  could forgive the sinners based upon the sacrifices they offered.
  Every time the offerings were slaughtered, they spoke of the coming
  sacrifice of the Son of God as the sin offering on Golgotha and of His
  accomplishment of the eternal work of salvation. Because the Lord is a
  man, He is able to redeem man from sin. Because He is God, He is able
  to redeem all men, past and present, from their sins.

  Those who offered the sacrifices in the Old Testament, consciously or
  unconsciously, believed in a coming crucified Savior.


Where is Jesus's Soul according to tripartite theology? When Lord Jesus came to the earth, He was fully God and fully human.
Many Christians believe that the human has three parts – body, soul and the spirit – and the word says He came in flesh.  Then we read in Luke 23:46:

  And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into
  thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the
  ghost. (KJV)

My question is: Are there references in the Bible that indicate what happened to the Lord's soul when He died or when He resurrected?

My question is directed to those that believes the Human has three parts (body, soul, and spirit).

The soul is the conscious part of you, and Jesus. His soul went to hell with His Body; returned to the surface of the earth at his resurrection; and to heaven at His ascension:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [Acts 2:29-33 KJV]

Jesus' soul is whever Jesus is.


Did Lot's daughters rape Lot? I read this horrifying article that sounds like victim blaming. I think this is like how rape victims are told they got raped because of they way they dressed, of where or when they went or, like Lot, they had too much to drink.

The article says

  Why did Lot have sex with his own daughters? He got drunk. Yes, his daughters conspired to get him drunk, but Lot willingly drank and, when he was drunk, he lost what little control and common sense he had.

I really don't see how this is different from telling rape victims, "Hey it's your fault you drank too much." Sure drinking too much isn't an excuse for DUIs, but drinking too much is definitely not a reason for getting raped and definitely a reason that you did not (consent to) have sex.

Of course I'm assuming that they indeed raped him, but my assumption is based on their talking to each other and not Lot about the, well, transaction.

  Let’s get our father to drink wine.

and not

  Let’s ask our father about having incestuous sex.

An NCBI abstract seems to say that the Bible (Hebrew or Christian or both, not sure) implies that this is the case but excuses the daughters. I believe their intent was clear: They intended to do this without consulting Lot. I wouldn't say this is textbook manipulation, whether or not it is actually manipulation, but the intent is to do something without consulting the other person: I would say that's textbook malice or at least interventionism or something. What's more horrifying is that it's the elder sister who corrupts the younger sister into doing such. Anyway, on Wikipedia it says

  A number of commentators describe the actions of Lot's daughters as rape. Esther Fuchs suggests that the text presents Lot's daughters as the "initiators and perpetrators of the incestuous 'rape'."

I'm surprised this is only a number of commentators and not the entire Judeo-Christian theological community. Then again I suppose consensuses are difficult to reach outside natural and formal science. Still, I hope at least one denomination (Orthodox, Catholicism, etc) of at least one religion (Judaism, Christianity, not sure Islam has Lot's daughters, etc) has some consensus.

The question: What is the Christian theological community's official opinion on whether or not Lot was raped by his daughters? In case I need to specify a denomination, I pick Catholicism. If allowed for the site for this question, then I prefer to not choose a denomination.

I believe Lot's Daughters did rape their father.  However, the fact that Lot was raped does not excuse his wonton drunkenness by any means.

By rape I simply mean that Lot did not agree (and would not have agreed if sober.)  Note the quote below:

  Gen 19:33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the
  firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when
  she lay down or when she arose.

Note that this was the case with the older daughter and the younger did the same.

  Gen 19:35  So they made their father drink wine that night also, and
  the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay
  down or when she arose.

The very fact that Lot was completely ignorant of what went on made him incapable of agreeing with the act of incest.  Therefore, it was an act of rape by the daughters who deliberately inebriated their father to make him insensible enough so that they could get away with such action.


Why is Jesus often depicted with long hair if 1 Corinthians 11:14 says it is disgraceful? According to 1 Corinthians 11:14, it is disgraceful for men to have long hair:

  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a
  disgrace for him?

Why, then, is Jesus often depicted with long hair?

Even if the premise that Christ had longer hair is true, it would not matter as that is not the point of this passage. If it is read in context i.e. read the chapter before and after, it is clear that Paul is talking about how Jewish customs and how even though they are no longer necessary due to Christ's sacrifice, they should still be observed if you are causing your brother to stumble:

  "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God"
  - 1 Corinthians 10: 31-32

Then he goes on in the start of Chapter 11 to talk about the custom of women covering their head to worship and men uncovering their head to worship and why that custom was in place: because angels needed to cover their head out of reverence to God. I'm not a Jewish custom expert but I do know that the point of this passage was not to show that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair but to show that you must respect the customs of the people you are around in church. This is shown by the ending phrase of that section:

  "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of head covering], nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corintians 11:16

It is important to always read God's word in context as it was meant or else you run the danger of missing the point.

Hope this helps :)


In Oriental Orthodox sacramental theology can a mixed marriage be valid? The Armenians and Syriac allow mixed marriages with trinitarian christians. But generally only the orthodox can take sacraments . How is such a mixed marriage valid then?

From The Sacrament of Holy Crowning in the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church

Today, this Eucharistic tradition is confronted with many challenges.
In our pluralistic society the great diversity of religious faith
confessions makes the “ideal” of a marriage between Armenian Orthodox
partners less a reality in the Church community. The Church now
encounters the condition of a “mixed marriage”; a marriage between an
Armenian Orthodox and a Christian from another faith confession. Such
situations do not change the general meaning of marriage with regard
to its intent but certainly present problems when celebrating the
rites of blessing.
It should be understood that mixed marriages are neither encouraged
nor forbidden by the Armenian Orthodox Church. Sacramental blessing by
the church granted through the person of the officient Priest could
only be administered and celebrated for those who are baptized
Christians. Canonically there is no separate liturgical rite for an
Armenian Orthodox and a non- Christian.
As stated, mixed marriages are those between Armenian Orthodox and
persons from Christian confessions that acknowledge belief in the Holy
Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The
celebration of the Sacrament of Crowning, as it is traditionally
called, is allowed for a mixed faith union out of concern for the
couple’s well being inviting them both to share in prayer and affirm,
however possible, their common faith within the rite without
compromise of personal or Church integrity. This practice of
“oekonomia” thus allows both to share as much as possible. It should
remain clear that the acceptance and participation of a non-Armenian
Orthodox Christian in the marriage rite does not imply his/her
conversion nor does it grant him/her the privilege to actively receive
the other Sacraments of the Church. It is only by the Sacrament of
Chrismation that one becomes a member of the faith community; after
proper catechizes before or after marriage.

Arguably, this is a palliative measure as a consequence of declining religiosity in Europe. The same phenomenon can be identified for other denominations in many European countries with low religiosity:

(Pew Research)
Which clearly reflects in the proportion of mixed marriages:

From Mixed Marriages in Europe, 1990-2010


What is the meaning of Isaiah 1:17? Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless. Plead the case of the widow. (NIV)

What does those three things mean?
An how do you do such things?

I would surely appreciate an explanation...

Isaiah 1:10-12
 tells us that those words were addressed to the rulers and priests. These people were to judge cases brought before them righteously, in the "courts," as it says in verse 12. But they have not sought justice, punished the oppressors, nor sided to help the widows who have no husbands to defend them and help them.

Verses 21-26 tells us about their wretched ways, that they cared nothing about justice, but they were "companions of thieves," loving bribes.

In conclusion, the passage you quote is God telling them to turn back to dealing righteously in the courts, to take up justice again.


Is there a 'Third Heaven'? 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (New International Version)

  2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not
  know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or
  apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to
  paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is
  permitted to tell.

Here Paul is relating a story of an experience that (presumably) he had, where he mentions going to 'the third heaven' also called 'paradise' in the same passage.

What is he referring to? Is he talking about a distinct place other than heaven, the abode of God'?
Is this phrase, 'the third heaven' have some meaning in Greek that is lost in English?
How would a first century Corinthian have understood this?

From the FaithLife Study Bible, this (three heavens) represents the understanding of the universe held by the Greeks:

  According to ancient cosmology, there are seven levels: the sky, the clouds, the sky above the clouds, the firmament, the waters above the firmament, the heavens, and the heaven of heavens, where God dwells. The three heavens view understands the first heaven to be the visible sky or the “firmament” (see Gen 1:8 and note), the second heaven to either be the “heavens” or the division between the “heavens” (the “waters above the firmament”; Psa 148:4), and the third to be the “heavens of heavens” or “highest heavens” (1 Kgs 8:27; Psa 148:4). All views agree on the places, but they label them differently.

In a nutshell then:

the first "heaven" is the atmosphere, the sky - the "heavens" that you can imagine a Victorian talking about.
the second heaven is the border between the sky and what we think of as "heaven," or, what I like to think of as "Space"
the third heaven is that bit with the pearly gates, the gold streets, and free harps.

In identifying "the third heaven," Paul is saying he was in the presence of God directly.


Why is Hebrews considered inerrant? Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) consider the Bible to be inerrant - that is, given directly by God, and without error as original written.

If we trust Jesus' words, then the inerrancy of the Eleven, Paul, and Old Testament  can be confirmed directly by Jesus. However, the letter to the Hebrews is generally considered to be of uncertain authorship.

This answer explains that Calvin considered the book to be accurate in it's teaching, but not written by Paul. Instead, he suggests it was written by one of the disciples of the first Apostles (Hebrews 2:1). To me, this would suggest the book is helpful teaching, like that of Calvin or other faithful writers, but doesn't hold the authority of the Apostles.

Given Evangelical Christians are uncertain of who wrote the letter to the Hebrews, why do they consider it inerrant?

Evangelical view of the inerrancy of Bible does not necessarily imply strict apostolic authorship, but rather the certainty that:

  Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

(Short Statement #4 in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy signed by more than 200 evangelical leaders (see wikipedia).

Even B.B. Warfield, a key figure in the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy, wrote in his 1892 article The Formation of the Canon of The New Testament (emphasis mine):

  Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the “canon” of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.”  Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon” is “instrumentum”; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon” — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally “Scripture” with it in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book of as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of “The Gospel and the Apostles,” — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.” The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written.

For more details on how Evangelicals grappled with inerrancy of the Bible and the rather fluid canon formation in the early church, see a good introductory article Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament. This talks about how Warfield's distinction specifically relates to Hebrews:

  The practical effect of this subtle distinction is to allow for the inclusion of books such as Mark, Luke, James, Jude and Hebrews which were not actually penned by the apostles, but were, according to tradition, written under apostolic sanction.

For a 2010 conservative evangelical attempt to establish the authorship of the Book of Hebrews, see Brian Wagner's paper Another Look at the Authorship of Hebrews from an Evangelical Perspective of Church History published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology, where he "decisively stated" that Barnabas was the author.  This should make the Book of Hebrews very close to Pauline authority, which in my opinion should make conservative evangelicals believing in inerrancy to be much more comfortable.


From the Preterist (fulfilled eschatology) perspective, who was "the prince that shall come" of Dan. 9:26? This question was asked previously without calling for a particular Christian perspective, and I believe it deserves an answer.  In two parts: How will Christianity identify the prince of the people of Dan. 9:26, and How could the first century Romans be connected to a leader of today before the "end".

So I am asking the same from the fulfilled eschatology perspective in order to be able to provide an answer.

According to preterist interpreter Philip Mauro, the only answer is Titus.

  WHO IS "THE PRINCE THAT SHALL COME"?
  At this point we are confronted with a question which very seriously affects the interpretation of the prophecy. Taking the words according to their apparent and obvious meaning (which should always be done except where there is a compelling reason to the contrary) it would seem quite clear that "the prince," whose people were to destroy the city and the sanctuary, was Titus, the son of the then emperor Vespasian, he (Titus) being the "prince" or "leader" who was in actual command of those armies at the time. In fact we are bold to say that the words of the prophecy, which are the words of God sent directly from heaven to Daniel, do not reasonably admit of any other interpretation.

Preterist Archive


Does every sin affect other people? Clearly Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden affected everyone.  And clearly if you murder someone, or commit adultery, it affects others.  But are there sins which do not affect other people?

What I am wondering for this question is if every sin affects other people.

As an extreme example, suppose God has spoken a promise to me, and I doubt it for a moment, but then repent and have faith.  During my time of doubt, I never speak or do anything - it is all internal.  Would that sin affect others?

The reason I am asking is that often times, non-Christians define "evil" as that which does harm to another.  By this definition, they justify things which are explicitly forbidden in Scripture, because in their eyes, it doesn't affect anyone else.  I also often hear Christians define "sin" as that which does harm to another.  One of the many passages used to support this teaching is:

  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. -Romans 13:10

Is "evil" defined as "that which harms another"?  If not, it seems like Christians need to stop using this secular definition in their teachings.

Personally, I am of the opinion that all sins affect those around us in at least the second degree, and they have a third degree effect on the whole world.

Here's the thought. In life you are either walking towards God or away from him. As you walk towards him you gain a docility of the spirit and become more Christ-like. If you walk away, you diminish in this.

So, if I decide that I am going to sin, "in private" that will still mean I have less of a disposition to Christ when in public. The lesser the disposition in public, the more likely I am to be less charitable with those around me, even if the sin is something completely unrelated. Thus, while we may not be hurting people directly, it is causing us to hurt them through second-hand folly.

(But, you say, what if one were to make amends before returning to the public? Well, what if, instead of making amends the same effort were put into prayer after never having sinned to begin with?)

I say that it affects us all in a "third degree" because the sins in the world make the world less righteous. Not only can it be said that you can never catch up to where you were had you not sinned to begin with, and that will carry over in both obvious and direct ways, and in more remote and indirect ways. One example might be that if you snap at someone, it may make that person more inclined to snap at another.

One might try to say, "but it would be but a drop in an ocean," and I would be inclined to agree but for the fact that there are almost 7 billion of us with droppers and all of us are putting a little in every day.


Which denominations believe in modern (ongoing) revelation? Which denominations believe in the concept of modern revelation?

The one that immediately comes to mind is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but what about other denominations?

EDIT: An answer should also explain what various denominations, or groups of denominations if the list grows large, believes about modern revelation.

The Society of Friends (Quakers) generally believe that each person has what they term the Divine Light, or "that of God," within them.  Because God is within and directly accessible to everyone, Friends generally value direct experience of the divine over religious texts (particularly the Bible).

The Dukhobors (a Christian movement that originated in Russia and Ukraine probably sometime in the 18th century and many of whom emigrated to Canada around the turn of the 20th century) have what is in many respects a similar belief pertaining to the value of religious texts, though they have historically tended to emphasize charismatic leaders and institutions over direct individual revelation (I should emphasize that this is a tendency, not a universally-true statement).


Does Catholic and Orthodox belief say 'antichrist' has already come and gone? It seems to be most Protestant denominations believe that right before the second coming, the antichrist will come, so he has not come yet. How is this different in Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Do they believe that he has already come and gone (e.g. perhaps he was Nero)?

Did Nero "sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God" (1 Thessalonians 2:4)? Before Nero, was there "a revolt [αποστασια = apostasy] first," after which "the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (ibid. 2:3)?

Cardinal Manning writes:

  St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared.

Thus, the revolt that must precede Antichrist is spiritual, not temporal.

Yes, Catholics believe Antichrist's reign is one sign of the end of the world. {The others are: a general preaching of the Christian religion, conversion of the the Jews, return of Enoch and Elijah, a great apostasy, perturbations of nature, universal conflagration, the Trumpet of Resurrection, and the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the heavens (source).}


How does the Westminster Confession address the paradox of the Bible canon? Chapter I, Article IV of the Westminster Confession (1647) reads:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

This is very similar to Article I in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978):

WE AFFIRM  that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
WE DENY  that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

But nowhere does Scripture define its own composition.
Would not some extra-Biblical source or sources have to be credited here as a relevant "testimony of man or Church" upon which the authority of Scripture itself must somehow depend?  Such sources would include Church Fathers, Church councils, consensus within one's denomination or branch, trust in the Bible publisher(s), or, at the very least, personal belief or intuition.
Is this a valid point? Has it ever been addressed by those who hold to the Westminster Confession?  If so, how is it addressed?

Yes, the Westminster Confession of Faith answers this apparent, but not real, circularity as follows. In Chapter 1 Paragraph 5, we read:

  We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The last clause (starting with "yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion...") is the key. The Holy Spirit convinces the believer that the Bible is true. This is the epistemology of the Christian. It is not circular, because it has an infinite reference point starting with God. God has to reveal himself before anyone knows anything about him.

Incidentally, the Bible actually does talk about itself, particularly in Luke 24, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:16. If you mean that the Bible does not define its own Table of Contents exhaustively, I would agree with you. The early church recognized the canon, it did not define the canon. This is consistent with John 10:27. There is a good lecture series by Richard Gaffin on how the canon originated.


Is Jeremiah 10:2-5 referring to a Christmas Tree? "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the
  heathen, and be not dismayed by the signs in heaven; For the heathen
  are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one
  cutteth the tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of a
  worksman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and gold; they fasten
  it with nails and hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the
  palmtree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot
  go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it
  in them to do good." (Jeremiah 10:2-5; KJV)

Can anyone answer this with scripture? (Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.) Why do we celebrate Christmas with a tree? Or at all for that matter?

Why do we celebrate Xmas with a tree? Or at all for that matter?

We can celebrate Christmas with a tree because the Bible does not prohibit it. Jer. 10 does not refer to the practice of celebrating Christmas and decorating a Christmas tree. Rather, it refers to the heathens (idolaters) cutting a tree out of the forest, making a wooden idol (a god), and then decorating it.

Compare:

Jer. 10:5

  They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. (KJV)

Nobody would think a tree speaks, moves, does evil, or does good. But the heathens did believe their idols had such powers.

Jer. 10:11

  Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. (KJV)

Jer. 10:14

  Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. (KJV)

We celebrate Christmas to commemorate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if we are not certain of the exact date he was born.


What is "Apologetics", exactly, and how is it used to defend the Christian faith? For those who are unfamiliar with  the term, or those who have only a passing familiarity, what is apologetics, in relation to Christianity?  Is it "proving the existence of God"?

For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?  And historically, how has the field of apologetics been used to defend the Faith?

From  http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics

  The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia,"
  pronounced "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used
  eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor.
  10:5-6; Phil. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last
  verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.

  "....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to
  make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the
  hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15,
  NASB).

Jumping ahead to the second part of the question: "For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?" the answer is "no".

If nothing else, this site, and the questions on it from the atheists and detractors show that the acceptable level of "proof" of God's existence is variable, and even if God Himself were to appear before a non-believer and demonstrate His power, it's quite possible that the non-believer would still refuse to believe that this is God.  To the true skeptic, no proof would be convincing enough. They would always suspect some sort of trickery, like that used by Ardra in the Star Trek TNG episode Devil's Due.

That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof.  Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than proving the faith.  When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics.  From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

  In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.
  This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim
  of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is
  assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such
  cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on.
  In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant
  debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For
  example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until
  proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As
  another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
  affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of
  proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot,
  psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

  Examples of Burden of Proof

  Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
  Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
  Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
  Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
  Jill: "What is your proof?"
  Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
  "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

That last one demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that applies apologetics can prove the existence of God.  If the Christian faith rested on the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God, we'd be in trouble for the reasons stated above.

However, apologetics isn't about proving that God exists, or that Christianity is true.  It's about defending the faith against the arguments that say it couldn't be true, logically.

Put simply, there is, and always has been, a requirement of faith within Christianity. Faith has been a central tenet throughout all of Scripture.  The question comes down to whether the faith is a reasonable faith, or simply a blind, indefensible, fairy-tale faith.  The field of apologetics, as applied to defending the faith from the atheist attacks isn't about proving that Christianity is true, but rather that it is not irrational to believe that it can be true.  Once that is established, we can defend the belief based on historical, archaeological, and logical arguments.

In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we may be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity is Truth?  Can we defend the argument that the Bible is inerrant and infallible?  Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?

Moving back to the first part of the question: What apologetics is....

Also from http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics

  Basically apologetics can be evidential (often called "classical") or
  presuppositional.  Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for
  Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled
  prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the
  presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity, because
  presuppositions affect how a person views evidence and reason.

Neither can stand on it's own.  Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence.

For example, the death and resurrection of Christ.  This is the central event that defines Christianity.  If this never happened, then Christianity has no basis whatsoever.

Today, right now, we can't go back and prove that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected.  Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts.

The "Swoon theory", for example, gives us an example of how the two complement each other.  The swoon theory, for those that don't know, is that Christ didn't really die - that He appeared to have died, and then recovered.)

As evidence for this (evidential/classic apologetics), we have only the evidence from Scripture, and one or two extra-Biblical accounts.  We have historical evidence, but not proof.  The skeptic can easily say "Yeah, the only "historical evidence you have is recorded in your made-up Bible, and a few superstitious extra-Biblical accounts from the time."

To counter this, we fall back on presuppositional apologetics - reasoning logically against the presuppositions of the skeptic.  We counter with all the arguments freely available at http://carm.org/swoon-theory

So, again, apologetics isn't so much about proving the Truth of Christianity as proving that Christianity is not unreasonable.  That it very easily could be true, and added to that, "this is the evidence that convinces us that it is true."

As for the historicity of apologetics, it has not always been only about defending the faith from atheistic beliefs.  It was also used to defend Christianity from fabricated charges.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christian

  Tacitus wrote that Nero fabricated charges that Christians started the
  burning of Rome. Other charges included cannibalism (due to a literal
  interpretation of the Eucharist) and incest (due to early Christian's
  practice of addressing each other as "brother" and "sister"). Saul of
  Tarsus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others often defended Christianity
  against charges that were brought to justify persecution.

In short, the field of apologetics is used primarily to defend the faith against detractors of all types - those who fabricate theories trying to disprove Christianity, those trying to show that it is an "evil" religion, or any other attack.  In general, it's not offensive in nature, trying to force others to believe, but rather defensive, saying "Hey, my belief is reasonable and here's why."  It's not about proving it as providing the believer with the assurance that their faith is not as silly, unreasonable, and evil as opponents would have you believe.


How do Calvinists interpret "Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path" and "He shall direct your paths"? Do Calvinists interpret the following verses to support predestination?
-   “Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psa 119:105)
-   “In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths” (Pro 3:6)

If so, is their view only that God predestined our salvation or also that he predestined everything (e.g., which colleges we would attend, which spouses we would marry, which jobs we would take, etc.)?

Is it significantly different to how Arminians interpret the above verses?

Reformed Theology (Calvinism) does teach that God is absolutely in control over everything, which means predetermining every tiny detail.
John Piper was asked the question 'Has God Predetermined Every Tiny Detail In the Universe, Including Sin?' (video and transcript), and he begun his answer with this:

Yes.
There's a great quote from Spurgeon about dust motes. You may not even know what a dust mote is, but when I get up in the morning in my room, there's a window to the side of the bed, and a beam of light will be shining through it at certain times of the year when I get it.
Now when I look through the dark I see nothing. But when I look through the beam I see the dust in the room. It's flying around, and I say, "I'm breathing that stuff!?" Yes, you are. And Spurgeon says that every one of those particles is keeping its position and moving through the air by God's appointment.
Now the reason I believe that is because the Bible says, "The dice are thrown in the lap, and every decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33). Proverbs 16 has a bunch of these verses in it.
Why would he choose "the die is cast into the lap"? It's because he's trying to think of the most random thing he could think of. And he says that. So randomness is not random to God.
God is not the least taxed by keeping every sub-nuclear particle in its place. I used to say electrons, but now there's something smaller than electrons. Everything in the middle of the molecule moving, and the electrons—he's got them all in orbit, just like he has the planets in orbit.


Did Jeremiah lie in Jeremiah 38:27 Is Jeremiah lying here? I know that Jeremiah had previously discussed not being sent back to Jonathan's house in Jeremiah 37:20, but that is not the conversation that the officials seem to be asking about in Jeremiah 38:24-27.

Jeremiah 38:24-27 (NET):

  Then Zedekiah told Jeremiah, “Do not let anyone know about the
  conversation we have had. If you do, you will die. 25 The officials
  may hear that I have talked with you. They may come to you and say,
  ‘Tell us what you said to the king and what the king said to you. Do
  not hide anything from us. If you do, we will kill you.’ 26 If they do
  this, tell them, ‘I was pleading with the king not to send me back to
  die in the dungeon of Jonathan’s house.’” 27 All the officials did
  indeed come and question Jeremiah. He told them exactly what the king
  had instructed him to say.

Yes, it appears from the description that Jeremiah was not completely honest with the officials. They probably were asking about Jeremiah's prophecies, and he did not tell them what they wanted to know. Whether this is technically lying depends on exactly what questions were asked and exactly what answers Jeremiah gave, but it's pretty clear that Jeremiah gave them a misleading impression at the least.

Now let's look at the circumstances. The 'officials' are enforcers of an occupying power (Babylon) which has conquered Israel, and they are trying to kill Jeremiah, whose only crime is speaking the word of the Lord. To insist that you must tell the truth to them at all times in those circumstances is the equivalent of insisting that a French Christian in the 1940s always tell the truth when the Nazis ask if there are Jews hidden in their house. Some would say that is exactly what they should do, but not everyone would.

We also have to remember that not everything that is done in the Bible is a perfect example. The people in the Bible are real, and they make mistakes and commit sins - even the ones that have the favour of God. Even if we conclude that Jeremiah did lie, and that the circumstances don't excuse it, that does not mean that lying is OK.