How long has the church been observing Lent? At what point in church history did the Lenten season become a significant part of the church year?

Obviously Easter came first, but I don't see the biblical basis for 40 days of preparation for Easter.  I'm sure from that arose Ash Wednesday, and then a need for a Mardi Gras - but when do we see each of these parts of the Lenten season coming about?

The word Lent itself is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "Spring," and another word which also was the word for "March," the month in which the majority of Lent falls. Fr. Saunders writes:

  "Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: "The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers" (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between "40" and "hours" made the meaning to appear to be "40 days, twenty-four hours a day." The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of "our forefathers" -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.

  Lent becomes more regularized after the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313. The Council of Nicea (325), in its disciplinary canons, noted that two provincial synods should be held each year, "one before the 40 days of Lent." St. Athanasius (d. 373) in this "Festal Letters" implored his congregation to make a 40-day fast prior to the more intense fasting of Holy Week. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechectical Lectures, which are the paradigm for our current RCIA programs, had 18 pre-baptismal instructions given to the catechumens during Lent. St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) in his series of "Festal Letters" also noted the practices and duration of Lent, emphasizing the 40-day period of fasting. Finally, Pope St. Leo (d. 461) preached that the faithful must "fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the 40 days," again noting the apostolic origins of Lent. One can safely conclude that by the end of the fourth century, the 40-day period of Easter preparation known as Lent existed, and that prayer and fasting constituted its primary spiritual exercises."

Others have speculated that Lent may have originally only been for believers preparing for baptism.


What biblical and historical support is there for the practice of child communion? About seven years ago my wife and I (who are childless) left our old church and set out to find the best church we could in the area.  We ended up in a church that practices paedocommunion (child communion).  They do not practice this because they believe that the children are saved, but because they believe that the children are members of God's Covenant People because they have been baptized, as most Presbyterians do.  They often point to the Passover feast as the similar Old Testament 'sacrament' where the children ate with the whole family.  What other evidence, both biblical and historical, supports this practice?

Here's what my denomination, the United Methodist Church, says about child communion:

May young children receive Communion?
Certainly. As The United Methodist Book of Worship puts it, “All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup.” We remember that when some of Jesus’ disciples tried to keep children away from him he said: “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14 NRSV).
But do young children know what they are doing when they receive Communion?
Do they understand the full meaning of this holy sacrament? No, and neither do any of us. It is a wonderful mystery, and children can sense wonder and mystery. Children cannot understand the full significance of family meals, but we feed them at our family tables and at Christ’s family table. Young children experience being loved by being fed. They sense the difference between being included and excluded at a family meal. They have the faith of a child, appropriate to their stage of development, which Jesus recognized and honored. Indeed, he said to adults: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15 NRSV).

I understand that other denominations have children wait until they have a better understanding of communion.  I'm sure they have good, scriptural reasons for their belief.


Weight of importance on the belief that Jesus is Michael for Jehovah's Witnesses? According to this and this other question, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel.

I am curious about the importance of this viewpoint.

Is this a "core tenet" for Jehovah's Witnesses (one that possibly other beliefs rest upon), i.e. is it something similar to, say, the belief in Trinity is for the Catholic Church?

Before I try to answer this question, I think I need to give some context as to how Jehovah's Witnesses have arrived at their current beliefs.

The "founders" of Jehovah's Witnesses used this method to interpret the Bible:

  “Someone would raise a question. They would discuss it. They would look up all related scriptures on the point and then, when they were satisfied on the harmony of these texts, they would finally state their conclusion and make a record of it.”

What that means is, we don't draw conclusions from the scriptures unless the Bible backs it up, and we don't assume that the Bible contains a specific belief until it can be proven. We don't use one belief to justify another belief; we use the scriptures to justify each belief individually. Over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have changed, refined, and clarified various beliefs. This isn't because the Bible has changed; it's because different scriptures have been highlighted which bring out new meaning to the previous scriptures which were used to justify that certain belief. Those same scriptures may have also been the basis for another belief, and so that other belief can be refined as well. This process is described at Proverbs 4:18:

  But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light
  That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.

So now to answer your question:

Jesus being Michael the Archangel is certainly a relevant belief, because it shows the love, grief, and sacrifice which Jehovah had to experience in order to watch Jesus, his first, most powerful, and most beloved creation, die and sacrifice himself for God's purpose. This is what makes Matthew 3:17 and Matthew 26:39 such emotional scriptures to read.

If Jesus is actually not Michael the Archangel, it would mean that the scriptures which support that belief would need to be reinterpreted in light of other scriptures. The new interpretation of all these scriptures would then have the opportunity to be applied to all of our other beliefs, and so more adjustments would follow over the years. I don't feel qualified to predict what these adjustments would be.

The identity of Michael the Archangel doesn't seem to be one of the "fundamental" beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses (which are listed here). The article on jw.org, "Who is Jesus Christ?" makes no mention of the name Michael, so I suppose it's not extremely vital to learning who Jesus is, but it certainly adds a lot of context to why Jesus was an appropriate choice for the Messiah, as Michael was also evidently the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness (Exodus 23:20, 21), and will also be the one who will stand up "in behalf of [Daniel's] people" during the great "time of distress." (Daniel 12:1)


What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance and that He has sovereign control over who He elects
Was God himself the author of this teaching or not?
Although birthright privileges for the firstborn son are mentioned in the Bible at the time of Isaac’s death (circa 1886 B.C.), it was not established in Mosaic Law for another 440 years. Even secular sources acknowledge that the custom of passing on rights and privileges to the eldest son “was sufficiently common in the Middle East for the passage [about Esau and Jacob] to seem plausible to the people living there prior to the Roman Empire.”
See Wikipedia’s article on Primogeniture.
The first mention of birthright and inheritance in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 25. Abraham’s son Isaac became father to twin boys (Esau and Jacob). The firstborn son had the right to inherit a double portion because “he is the beginning of his [father’s] strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17).  The birthright (bekorah) has to do with both position and inheritance. By birthright, the firstborn son inherited the leadership of the family and the judicial authority of his father.  The father would pronounce a blessing which was considered to be the formal act of acknowledging the firstborn as the principal heir.
Yet, even before the twins were born, the Lord predicted that the older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob) (Genesis 25:23).  There are several instances where God’s sovereign will decreed that the firstborn son would not always be the son to inherit.  God cursed Cain, the first son born to Adam and Eve, and blessed Seth, the third son.  Through Seth came Noah, then Shem (who was not the oldest son) and on to Abraham and Isaac (who was not the oldest son), then to Jacob. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28), and he became the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Then, in Exodus 4:23 God calls Israel “my firstborn son”. This goes beyond any human notion of the rights and privileges of the firstborn son but speaks of God’s divine will. God also declared Jesus to be his Son (Matthew 3:17), who is described as “the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth” (Revelation 1:5). There is a spiritual application to this issue of firstborn and inheritance.
What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance and that He has sovereign control over who He elects

As this question is not concerned with establishing a ‘secular’ answer about the origins of the idea of birth-right (which includes inheritance) I can breathe a sigh of relief and concentrate on collating various Old Testament scriptures that give information on where human and divine views digress. Therein lies the answer to the question, as to whether or not God was the origin of a concept like inheritance.
I suggest that, from the Bible texts I have studied, it can be said that God’s concept of ‘inheritance’ differs radically from human concepts at some critically important points.  Take Psalm 2, for instance. This is a prophetic statement about the Lord God and his Anointed One. Without offering any interpretations, I simply point out that verse 8 has God invite his Son to “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This is where the inherited rule of the Lord’s Anointed becomes the rule of God himself, for to submit to the rule of the Anointed is to “Serve the LORD” God (vs. 11).
Working backwards now, from the greater to the lesser, Bible texts show where God breaks through into what humans considered to be the right of the first-born and his (and it’s usually a ‘his’) inheritance. God keeps asserting his sovereign right to stop humans doing what they would choose to do regarding this birth-right principle.
You have already mentioned examples of this, including Abraham’s miracle child, Isaac, and the twins, Esau and Jacob. The youngest son of Jacob was chosen by God as ‘over’ his 11 brothers. God sent dreams to the lad, Joseph, foretelling this in symbolic imagery; decades later, it came to pass, even his aged father realising it. Jacob blessed Joseph’s second-born son above the first-born son, putting Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. Jacob did not bless his firstborn, Reuben, but said he would no longer excel, then pronounced Joseph ‘prince among his brothers’ (Genesis chapter 48 to 49:1-26).
The daughters of Zelophehad were chosen to inherit (when they stood up and made a legal case for it) due to their father having no sons. Numbers ch. 27 & 36:1-12. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 details the rights of the firstborn (not always the first-born son – a first-born daughter with no brothers could inherit, due to the precedent of Zelophehad’s daughters.)
The youngest son of Jesse was chosen by God as king ‘over’ his many brothers and the nation (1 Samuel 16:1-13). No doubt there are lots of other cases; this is just a sample to show that God’s choosing is not determined by human customs, or even laws. Perhaps that’s because God’s law states that all humans have inherited sin from our original, earthly father, and that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 5:12 & 6:23). That’s the horrible inheritance we all get and which we need to face up to. Any earthly inheritance is just so much of a soon-to-be rust-bucket heaped full of moth-eaten fabric.
But if God should call us his ‘sons’, adopting us into his heavenly family (Romans chapter 8), then our inheritance is beyond our wildest dreams, kept in heaven for us. Nor is such an inheritance due to any merit or standing on our part, but a freely bestowed gift of grace. Though we be the first-born son of an earthly king or the poorest girl in the gutter, humanly speaking, God elevates those he chooses.
This, to me, indicates that while there may be something of the divine principle of sonship and inheritance in human primogeniture laws, human laws are (as so often is the case) too rigid and short-sighted to grasp the spiritual principles that ought to be their basis.


How is the New Covenant consistent with Deuteronomy 4:2? The King James Bible; Deuteronomy 4:2, says:

  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

How does this make sense with the New Testament? How can there be a New set of laws given when the Old Testament clearly says not to add on?

The simple answer is that the New Testament neither adds nor subtracts anything from the Old Testament, the New Testament is the more perfect and fulfilled Word of God. For example, John 8:3-11.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Notice that Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more." rather than "Thou hast no guilt, wrongly accused were thee". Of course, there are very defined things that contrast Judaism and Christianity, things that were changed by Jesus, such as the view of the Sabbath day and clean and unclean foods.

It must be taken into account that the verse shown (Deuteronomy 4:2) says "YE shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall YE diminish ought from it...". This meaning that the Israelites, and mankind as a whole for that matter, shall not add unto nor diminish from the holy word of God, and not that he is not allowed to. God the father said for hundreds of years by means of prophets, that the day would come when the Messiah would come to earth and make a new and improved covenant with Jew and Gentile alike. That is what He did through His Son, Jesus. Jesus was a representative of the father and embodied that new and wonderful Covenant (John 10:30, Matthew 3:17, Romans 1:4, etc.).


If most of the Jehovah's Witnesses today are not a part of the 144,000, then what exactly are they? I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are few of their members today who are part of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelations.  This implies that most of their members are not included in that number.

What, then, is the status of these people?  Are they just believers who will go to heaven when Christ returns?  Will they live on earth at that time?  What are they called, and what will happen to them according to the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Q. "If most of the Jehovah's Witnesses today are not a part of the 144,000, then what exactly are they?"

A. While the scriptures show that a limited number of 144,000 have the God given hope of living FOREVER as Kings & Priests RULING in God's Heavenly Kingdom with Christ himself, the overwhelming vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have the awesome God given hope of living FOREVER on the Biblically foretold paradisaic New Earth as royal subjects of God's Heavenly Kingdom wherein the Scriptures state that such ones will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. (Psalm 37:11, 29; Isaiah 65:17, 20-23; Matthew 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:3-5).

While the vast majority of the Churches of Christendom teach that there is but only one final destination for the faithful of God's chosen people, the Holy Scriptures teach and show that there is in fact not one but TWO final destinations for the faithful of God's chosen people (Ruling in Heaven or The foretold Paradisaic New Earth). Almighty Jehovah God by means of His Holy Spirit through Christ determines who goes where in accordance to His divine will and everlasting purpose.

~ NOTE: I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.


Did Moses see the face of God? Exodus 24:9-11

  9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel
  went up
  10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something
  like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.
  11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the
  Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Here we see that Moses and others saw God with their own eyes.

But later, Moses was not allowed to see God's face.

Exodus 33:18-23

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

  19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front
  of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I
  will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion
  on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my
  face, for no one may see me and live.”

  21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand
  on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in
  the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I
  will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be
  seen.”

If Moses already saw the face of God, then who's face was he not allowed to see?

Who was covering Moses and preventing him from seeing God?

Were there two people?. Or Maybe three?

The use of the word 'face' is different in these two contexts.
In the first use God is said to speak to Moses 'face to face' that is not from some distant position as in a dream, or vision but speaking audibly to him while under some visible form.  In other words, God spoke to Moses like a person does who is having a conversation.  God spoke out of a burning bush, out of a pillar of cloud, ect. and he spoke as in conversation between friends.  That is Moses could ask questions, God would answer, the conversation would continue, ect.  Speaking face to face was not the normal mode which God communicated with men, or later prophets.
Regarding the specific 'form' that God presented to the elders representing the people of Israel, it was actually a 'formless' representation of glorious fire wrapped in a cloud that made the place at which it joined the glorious upper heavens to the spot on earth which they stood, a shining clear blue. The blue a reflection of the sky of heaven. The elders saw the same thing that the people in general saw, only closer. The word 'foot' does not mean that there was some secret form, like for example the more Christlike appearance of Ezekiel 1:26 where the 'appearance of a man' was seen. The foot is meant to be understood as not a human foot but as a base. God's glory in heaven landed on earth making a covenant with his people, that was the base. Certainly if they saw a human form they would have make and idol, something which was forbidden as they had not seen any real form:

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.(Duet 4:11-12)
“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female. (Duet 4:15-16)

The second use of the phase pertains to the manifestation of God's glory. When you look into the face of someone you can see into their eye's, along with the expression on their face, their essential personality or being.  If you only saw the back of their head, you might not even know who you were looking at.  The idea in Moses not being able to see God's face is that he could not witness the essential glory of God.  No man while veiled in sinful flesh can see God's essential unmasked glory and live:

As our bodily eye is dazzled, and its power of vision destroyed, by looking directly at the brightness of the sun, so would our whole nature be destroyed by an unveiled sight of the brilliancy of the glory of God. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Keil & Delitzsch, 1.476)

Therefore although Moses wanted to penetrate deep into the glory of God he had to accept a limitation and only see the back of God.  God is using human terms to express a limited reflection of his glory.  The glory that must have appeared to him was a deep revelation of the meaning of the very words which were spoken as his 'glory passed by':

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7, NIV)

It seems that part of this deeper revelation of Jehovah, the I AM that I AM, or the eternal powerful one, is by putting love and grace before wrath. However putting love first was not meant to imply that his infinite justice and wrath for sin would ever be compromised, rather his glory is simply more wrapped up in his grace and love than in his other aspects of his back-parts. Moses must have seen God's love in an extraordinary matter. Infact it made his face shine, but as the Law did not really centre in God's grace but was in a large part a revelation of his holiness, justice and wrath for sin, this glory faded and was veiled until the full manifestation of grace was revealed in the face of God's own Son. (2 Cor 3:7)
Did Moses see God face to face, i.e. see his essential glory? No, not while on this earth. However after he died, like every believer he would have immedietly become awakened into the full glory of God under the bright rays of heaven.


Do Catholics believe that Mary is above all other humans in holiness? Does her being born as she was (i.e. immaculately conceived), and being the Mother of the Savior (Mother of God) make her higher than everyone else? Or is she considered not necessarily holier than any other human being? Is there a standard Catholic teaching on this question?

Mary's dignity and all of her privileges follow from her vocation, which is from all eternity God chose her to be His Mother, therefore this places her in a realm distinct not only from all the saints, but from all the angels as well.

  The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of
  God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is
  acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother
  of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and
  united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the
  high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by
  which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the
  temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she
  far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same
  time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one
  with all those who are to be saved. She is "the mother of the members
  of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be
  born in the Church, who are members of that Head." Wherefore she is
  hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its
  type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church,
  taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety
  as a most beloved mother. - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,
  Lumen gentium, 53

And she is holier than they because she placed no obsatcle to this unique grace from God, saying yes to God all they days of her life, faithfully corresponding with all graces:

  And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to
  me according to your word.” - Lk 1:38 (RSVCE).

Many saints and doctors of the Church consider that the initial grace in Mary was greater than the final grace of all other beings.


When Saint Rita was born, how old was her mother? A question about hagiography. It is said that Saint Rita's mother Amata Ferri was old when her daughter was born, and she had been sterile for a very long time. But how old was she, if anyone knows her biography (even an approximation if you have).

Ch. 2, "The Birthplace and Parents of St. Rita," of Sicardo & Murphy's 1916 biography of her says Antonio Lotti and Amata Ferri were married in 1309. Ch. 3, "St. Rita's Birth," says "The biographers of St. Rita give the day, date and year of her birth as Saturday, May 22, in the year of Our Lord 1381, during the pontificate of Pope Urban VI."

So, assuming she married at an age of 12* in circa 1297, this means Amata was at least 84 years old** when she had St. Rita.(If she married in her 20s in circa 1289, she would've been at least 92 when she had St. Rita!)
*the youngest age, according to canon law, that a female could marry back then, assuming she reached puberty by then; in fact St. Rita herself became a wife at 12 years of age according to this**cf. Abraham's wife Sarah, who was 90 years old when she had her first child (Gen. 17:17)

Ibid. says:

  Words cannot describe the indescribable joy of Antonio and Amata as, with loving eyes, they gazed on their little daughter whom they considered a precious gift of God, the fruit of their desires, and the reward of their long years of hope and confidence in God. The unexpected news that Amata Ferri had become a mother in her old age was the cause of much surprise, talk, and gossip among the inhabitants of Rocca Porrena. All considered the event as truly miraculous. Every man, woman, and grownup child of the little hamlet went to offer congratulations to the happy and overjoyed parents, and all who gazed on the smiling face of the newborn babe were charmed by the radiance of the little one’s wonderful beauty.


What does "son of thy handmaid" means in Psalm 86:16 and Wisdom 9:5? King Solomon and King David identified themselves both as servant although King and more so, both of them said they are the "son of thy handmaid".

Are the mothers of King Solomon and King David a handmaid?

Both of the passages does not imply King David and King Solomon referred to their biological mother when they uttered to God saying "son of thy handmaid".

Or this passage is related to Jesus also a King
but came in the form of a servant and became the "son of thy handmaid". This time St. Luke gospel reveals what the "son of thy handmaid" means. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave a title to herself and it doesn't came from angel revelations but from Her own words, staing Her role as the Mother of all the elect not just Jesus Christ.

  Mary said,  Behold,  "I am the handmaid of the Lord. .." (Luke 1:38)

Is King David and King Solomon prophesying the future role of Mary's name as a powerful intercessor and mediatrix of graces before the Throne of God?

" I am the handmaid of the Lord." ( Luke1:38 )

Luke 1:38 could be translated the following way:

  Because the Lord is my boss, he can demand whatever he wants and I have to do what he asks me.

I know that in Germany decades ago there were a lot of prayers in the Catholic church where the faithful were naming themselves as handmaids and servants of God.

This has the same meaning: The Lord is the boss of all people, so we have to do what the Lord wants us to do.

  King Solomon and King David identified themselves both as servant although King and more so, both of them said they are the "son of thy handmaid"

Same meaning here: Both Kings say that the Lord is their boss ("I am your servant") and that he already was the boss of their parents ("son of your handmaid").

EDIT

  Your answer is purely personal opinion.

There is one aspect I forgot to mention, and this time it is definitely verifiable facts:

Luke wrote his gospel in Greek language while the Psalms are written in Hebrew language.

This means that it is hard to say if both texts use the same word ("handmaid") at all because when translating a text into another language the translator always has the choice between different words.

So it depends on the translators of the Bible if Luke 1 and Psalm 86 use the same word or if these texts use different words!

Comparing the Book of Wisdom to the Gospel is easier: Both books are written in Greek language.

Unfortunately I don't speak Greek. However, as far as I understand the words translated by Google Translator correctly, Mary uses the same word in Luke 1:38 that Solomon uses for himself (and not for his mother!) in Wisdom 9:5:

The same word is translated as "handmaid" in Luke 1:38 and as "servant" in Wisdom 9:5. Google Translate translates the word as "slave".

So arguing "it is the same word" will not work with translations but only with the original texts.

Edit 2

  Does the word "boss" ever appear or been use in the scriptures to address God?

It seems to me that you think the Bible has originally been written in English language. However, this is not the case.

The Bible has been written in Hebrew and Greek languages and has been translated to English language.

In the original texts you will neither find the word "boss" nor the word "Lord" because these are English words.

It was the personal choice of the translators of your Bible translation to use the word "Lord" and not the word "boss" to address God.

Other translations use other words: Although English is not my native language, I know about one existing English translation of the Bible that does not use the word "Lord" at all!

And as far as I understand the Greek translations correctly, in the original text Solomon and Mary use the same word to describe themselves, but Solomon uses a different word describing his mother.

This means that your initial observation (Mary uses the same word for herself as Solomon uses for his mother) is only true for the English (and the German!) translation of the Bible, but it is not true for the original text written by Luke.

I doubt that you believe that a translation of the Bible written by some translator contains information that the original text written by Luke does not contain.

EDIT 3

  ... failed to answer, why King David and King Solomon called their mother a handmaid, ...
  They both identified themselves as "son of thy handmaid"

You didn't get the point:

Up to the 4th century, the Gospels and the book of Wisdom were only available in Greek language. But the original texts are looking like this (I hope I did not make a mistake because I don't speak Greek):

  Book of Wisdom, chapter 9:
  For I thy doulos (= male slave) and son of thine paidiske (= female servant) am a feeble person, ...

  Gospel of Luke, chapter 1:
  And Mary said, Behold the doule (= female slave) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

So the answer to your question is simple:

The two verses in the book of Wisdom and in the gospel of Luke DO NOT use the same word!

And of course the Psalm and the Gospel cannot use the same word because they are not written in different languages.

As far as I'm informed correctly, the first translation of the Bible that uses the same word in the different verses has been written about 300 years after Mary's death!

And ...

  ... or speaking in prophecy?

... a text that is written 300 years after some event is not a prophecy!


Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the first century? What about the second century (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records?
Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.

The following are quotes from Bishops and apologists of the early church and a few were first or second generation disciples of the Apostles themselves.  As such it is very easy to deduce that, not only did they have a large audience and impact, but they represent the teachings of the church at that time and of the Apostles themselves regarding the Deity of the Christ.
Polycarp (AD 69-155)

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.(1)

Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-117)

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.(2)

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.(3)

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.(4)

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.(5)

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.(6)

For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father.(7)

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.(8)

Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.(9)

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.(10)

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.(11)

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshiped, as God and as Christ.(12)

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin...(13)

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.(14)

Melito of Sardis (AD ?-180)

He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—God put to death!.... [I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.... This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.(15)

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202)

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam
is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But
that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived,
God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed
by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be
seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.
Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him,
if, like others, He had been a mere man.... He is the holy Lord, the
Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty
God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things
did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.(16)

He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.(17)

Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.(18)

Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.(19)

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man.... [W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.(20)

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.... The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends(21)

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God...(22)

Tertullian (AD 150-225)

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.(23)

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.(24)

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?(25)

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.(26)

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.(27)

For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.(28)

For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.(29)

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name.... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.(30)

Origen (AD 185-254)

Jesus Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.(31)

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist.... How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.(32)

For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.(33)

Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.(34)

But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.(35)

And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.(36)

The majority of these were taken from Early Christian Writings
1. Polycarp, Philippians, 12:2. ↩
2. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 0.0. (This is the Greeting.) ↩
3. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1.1. ↩
4. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2. ↩
5. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2. ↩
6. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3. ↩
7. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.3. Holmes, AF, 229. ↩
8. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.1. Holmes, AF, 249. ↩
9. Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 3.2. Holmes, AF, 265. ↩
10. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128. Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:264. ↩
11. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 36. ANF, I:212. ↩
12. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229. ↩
13. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63. ANF, I:184. ↩
14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 126. ANF, I:263. ↩
15. Melito, 5. ↩
16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19.2. ↩
17. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7. ↩
18. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1. ↩
19. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2. ↩
20. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4. ↩
21. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 1. ↩
22. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10. ↩
23. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41. ↩
24. Tertullian, Apology, 21. ↩
25. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 9. ↩
26. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2. ↩
27. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29. ↩
28. Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23. ↩
29. Hippolytus, Against Plato, Section 3. ↩
30. Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17. ↩
31. Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4.  ↩
32. Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11.  ↩
33. Origen, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15.  ↩
34. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.  ↩
35. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4.  ↩
36. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10.  ↩


The Cost of Salvation My question is, did Jesus have to die for our sins?
If no, then how would we have obtained salvation.
If yes, if Jesus did in fact have to die for our sins, I do not understand this.

Why would God make our salvation only possible through the death and torture of His son? Why would the gates of heaven opening be contingent upon a select group of humans committing atrocities (i.e. torture, murder). This seems problematic in regard to christian ethics. In the process of bringing us salvation a few had to commit great sin, is this true?

Universal Laws according to the Bible:

All who sin must die.

  For the wages of sin is death... (Romans 6:23)

Sin can be washed only by an innocent blood

  In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with
  blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
  (Hebrews 9:22)

The blood of animal cannot take away sins.

  It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
  (Hebrews 10:4)

Universal Truths according to Bible:

All are sinners.

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

All must go to Hell.

  Death in Biblical context refers to Spiritual Death, which is
  separation from God or living in Hell. Therefore, since all are
  sinners, all must die and all must go to Hell.

God gave His one and only Son to die for us:

  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. (John 3:16)

Jesus Christ sacrificed his blood: Since all humans are sinners and animal blood cannot take away sins permanently, only the the blood of the Jesus Christ the sinless one can take away our sins. Jesus sacrificed himself for us by dying on the cross, by pouring out all his blood and taking all our punishments on him.

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we
  might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Anyone who believes Jesus Christ will not be condemned:

  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
  Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives
  life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the
  law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God
  did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin
  offering (Romans 8:1-3)

Philosophical explanation of how the whole thing works (source):

  We can no more defy this law and live than we can defy the law of
  gravity by jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. The end
  result will be death unless—unless we apply another law, the law of
  aerodynamics. This law makes it possible for an airplane to fly and a
  parachute to lower us to the earth gradually and thereby save us.

  There is another universal law that we cannot defy and live. It is
  "the law of sin and death," which means that the judgment and penalty
  of all sin is death and eternal separation from God. That is, unless
  we apply a higher law which is "the law of the Spirit of Life," which
  is a God-given "spiritual parachute" to save us from eternal death.
  God provided this law through the death of Jesus who died in our place
  to pay the penalty for our sin.

  Furthermore, because God is also a God of absolute holiness, no sin or
  unforgiven sinners can survive in his presence. As some bacteria are
  not able to survive in the light and die if they are exposed to it, so
  it is with us. In our sinful state if we were exposed to God and his
  incredible light, we would be destroyed instantaneously. And herein
  lies our dilemma.

  However, God's answer to our dilemma lies in the fact that God is not
  only a God of infinite justice and absolute holiness, but also a God
  of eternal love. Because of his love, God gave his very own Son, the
  Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty
  for our sins to meet the automatic demands of his (God's) justice and
  holiness. Christ's death made possible God's "law of the Spirit of
  Life"—our God-given "spiritual parachute"—to save us from eternal
  death.

(All verses in New International Version)


What do Reformed Christians understand by God's foreordination? The reformed, Westminster Confession of faith, reads in chapter three:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass

Does foreordained mean God wanted certain historical evils like wars to happen? And that there is nothing we could have done, for those events not to happen, since God, from all eternity, willed them?

The word ‘foreordained’ is usually a translation of a Greek word meaning “to know beforehand.” Speaking about the birth of Jesus, 'foreordained' is used in that sense in 1 Peter 1:20 (KJV):

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

The meaning of ‘foreordained’ becomes clearer in Ephesians 1:5 (KJV):

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

In other words, God has “predetermined” or “marked out beforehand” those who would be adopted into His family.
You ask if this means that God wanted and willed evil events (like wars) to happen and that men were powerless to stop evil events (like wars) to happen.  The answer to that question is NO and the explanation is clear when all eight points in Chapter 3 – Of God’s Eternal Decree – are taken into account.  Section 1 makes it clear that God is not the author of sin, neither is the will of men constrained.  The liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away, but is established.
Here is a Reformed Protestant understanding of the Westminster Confession, Chapter 3, Of God's Eternal Decree:

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

It adds "(4) that this does not make God the author of sin, (5) that God does not force men to do what they do not want to do (in the way of sin), (6) that this does not destroy 'freedom' or cause and effect relationships (rather, it is the very basis upon which these exist), and (7) finally, that this sovereign plan of God is not 'conditioned upon' anything foreseen by him (which would make God dependent upon something outside himself)."

Page 31 makes this point, which can be applied to men starting wars which are evil (i.e. not out of need to defend from an aggressor). This shows that God does not cause people to start evil wars:

"Freedom may be defined as 'the absence of external coercion." If a man is not forced by any power outside himself to do that which is contrary to 'what he wants to do,' then we may properly say that he is 'free'. The wonder of God's predestination is that God does leave men free in this sense, even though he predestines everything that every man will ever do. Some people see the word 'freedom' in another sense, however, which is false in the extreme. They mean, by the 'freedom' of man, that man has the power to do good or evil at any moment of time. To say that a man is able to do good or evil, is very different from saying that a man is at liberty to do what he desires. We believe that man is at liberty but not ability to do what is right. For the truth is that man, while free from coercion from the 'outside' is not free from the control of his own nature. He who is evil by nature must of necessity produce corrupt fruit, Mt. 7:17-19). Just as we may say that God is good and therefore cannot do evil, so we may say that man (by nature) is evil and cannot (of himself) do good."

Source: "The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes" by G.I. Williamson, (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1964)
Isaiah 46:9-11(KJV) declares the sovereignty of God:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure... I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

We might not like it, and we might not fully understand it, but we know that God has foreordained the way of salvation for “whosoever believes” in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16–18, 36; Acts 10:43). God has foreordained that believers will be adopted into His family as children of God (John 1:12) and that He will take the responsibility of transforming us into the likeness of Jesus (Romans 8:29–30). God has foreordained that all those born again by grace through faith will spend eternity in heaven with Him (John 3:3; 17:3; Ephesians 2:8–9). We can rest in the knowledge that we have a Father who is in charge of His universe and that His plan is perfect.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?  God forbid! (Romans 9:14 KJV)


What author gave this illustration of truth via a backyard fence? Long ago I was told a story, which is now probably corrupted in my mind, that makes a good illustration of the relationship between rules and freedom in Christianity.

It goes something like this: a family's house has a backyard that ends in a cliff. The child, playing in the backyard, is afraid of the cliff, and therefore stays near the house. However, when a fence (think "rules") is erected around the perimeter of the backyard, the child experiences freedom to play throughout the whole yard. Moral: the truth can set us free.

I originally thought that this story was owed to C. S. Lewis, but now I cannot track it down. Who authored this idea?

G.K. Chesterton in his seminal work Orthodoxy:

  Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff's edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.

He's pretty much saying that Orthodoxy leaves a person free'er to be truly human and truly alive than breaking laws and smashing things or being a pagan would leave you.

Note, Chesterton says "Catholic Doctrine" here, but this was written many years before he, himself, entered the Catholic Church.

Read it on Gutenberg
Listen on Librivox
Buy it from American Chesterton Society


What does this reference in the Watchtower Online Library mean? I found the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible research site (the Watchtower Online Library) and wanted to look up their explanation regarding the year 1914.

According to the section highlighted in red on this page,

  the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations”

On another hand, this page contains a reference stating:

  end in 1914 suggested before Russell: g94 11/8 10; jv 134

I knew from before that their calculations about 1914 seem to have come from their founder, C.T. Russell. According to the information on the first link above, these calculations were first publicized in the March 1880 edition of the Watchtower.

However reference in the second link seems to state that someone else had come to that conclusion before Russell.

What does the reference mean, and who was the person(s) who suggested it before Russell?

What does the reference mean?

The Witnesses use a rather odd and somewhat cryptic set of abbreviations for their publications.

g94 11/8 10 is Awake! magazine, 8th of November, 1994, p. 10.
jv 134 is Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (pub. 1993), p. 134.

Many books also have another, less cryptic abbreviation. For example, jv is often simply called “the Proclaimers book”. If I remember correctly, the full title is on the front cover, and just Proclaimers on the spine.

References are always by page number, even for references to the Insight or Reasoning books, which are alphabetical by topic and hence in completely different orders in different languages.

Who suggested it before Russell?

Here is the referenced passage in the Proclaimers book. (This was copied from an online scanned version I found, to which I will not link as it is violating copyright. I do actually have my own copy somewhere, in one of my many piles and boxes of books waiting to be put on my shelves once I get them assembled.) The italics are in the original.

  As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length.
  But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these Seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the "seven times" of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

  Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah's removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.

The following paragraph is about Russell contacting Barbour and working with him.


Is the 'Ho' in Hosanna! connected in any way to the 'ho' in Jehovah? While studying Jesus' name and the prophecies fulfilled or reiterated by Gabriel when he addressed Mary to announce the expectant birth, I was led to praise, and the Bible word, "Hosanna" came to mind.

Having seen in my study of 'Yeshua' and 'Yehoshua' that 'ho' is the common abbreviation that was used for God's holy name, I wondered if there was any connection.  I haven't found any direct connection, but perhaps I have missed something, or perhaps the only connection is in the transliteration of these names and words from Hebrew and Greek into English.  Is there any reason to believe a connection exists?

The basic definition of Hosanna is 'praise, adoration or joy' (I asked Siri!).  Looking at Strong's via http://blueletterbible.org The word G5614 is used as an interjection; originally a cry for help, but later became an utterance of praise (Vine's).  The origin is with two Hebrew roots (H3467) and (H4994).

I was seeing Ho-san-na in the English, but it is actually broken up more like Hosa-nna when related to the Hebrew roots.  The transliteration of those words is yasha' (H3467) and na' (H4994).

Interestingly, Jehovah, Joshua, Yeshua (Hebrew) and the Greek equivalent Jesus are all related to the word group that includes yasha' (H3467).  The concept is related with words all pertaining to salvation.  Blue Letter Bible lists "to be open, wide, free, safe" or "causitively--to free, avenge, defend, deliver,...rescue, bring salvation, save(ior), get victory".

H4994 is a participle, na', that can mean "now, then, I pray".  It is used for incitement or entreaty, such as "I beseech thee." (Ex. 33:18).  It is translated "let" in Judges 13:8.

In Ps. 118:25, we also find yasha' translated as "Save now" and "I beseech thee" has a different Hebrew word--'anna' (H577)

I share all of this partly to answer my question, but also to broaden it a bit.  Perhaps there is no linguistic connection, but is there rather a conceptual connection between Hosanna and Jehovah?

Only God saves in the spiritual sense, and often uses human agents to save in a physical sense, or with spiritual implications.  Jesus, being both a human agent and God, was able to save and worthy of praise for being Savior and carried the name Yehoshua or Yeshua.  These names identify Him with the Almighty, Holy One of Israel, YHWH.

Even if the people who cried, "Hosanna!" in Matthew 21:9, as either an entreaty, i.e. "Save us!  Free us, now!" or as praise, i.e. "Deliverer!  Victory!" did not make these conceptual connections, is there anything amiss about seeing such a relationship between Hosanna (Savior, save us!) and Jehovah, the God Who, because of His eternal existence, is able to save forever those who call upon His mercy?


Is there no Heaven, Hell, or Satan in the Old Testament? In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, the author claims that Heaven and Hell are concepts not mentioned in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
From Sapiens:

Belief in heaven (the realm of the good god) and hell (the realm of the evil god) was also dualist in origin. There is no trace of this belief in the Old Testament, which also never claims that the souls of people continue to live after the death of the body.

References
Harari, Y.N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (p. 248)

Heaven and Satan:

  Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

We see the entrance of Satan, and his response tells us that their current "location" is one distinct from Earth, as Satan says he was on Earth previously. If we are to understand Heaven be the "realm of God" so to speak, we have it explicitly here.

As for Hell, there's a meaningful sense in which iit may not exist yet, as it is properly developed in the NT. But, in the OT, we have many references to "Sheol", a "realm of the dead". One such is 1 Samuel 2:6:

  The Lord kills and brings to life;
      he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

If you affirm the Deuterocanonical scriptures, we also have Tobit 13:1-2, which mirrors the first samuel text:

  Blessed is God who lives for ever, and blessed is his kingdom. For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades, and brings up again, and there is no one who can escape his hand.


Is there any evidence that some Christian leaders discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT? I am interested in the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and their languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through twice and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through four times. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org). In addition, Mr. Lee Woofenden, an ordained minister, in answering my original question, pointed out that 'historically, the Roman Catholic Church has at times discouraged or even effectively forbidden the laity from reading the Bible (...) The Tridentine Index of Prohibited Books, The Roman Index of Prohibited Books.' I, accordingly, ask:

Is there any evidence whatsoever or indications that some leaders in major Christian churches or denominations discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT?

What is/are the Christian denomination/denominations that most encourage reading the whole NT?

Baptists often place a high value on Biblical literacy. However, there can be a large variation within a particular denomination.

I was once in a business meeting 20 years ago where the subject of having our manufactured products labeled with the "CE" mark for European distribution was raised. Someone said that we "would not be able to sell without the mark".

Later I was talking with a man who I knew to be Christian (Lutheran) who had been in the same meeting. I was commenting that although I knew the Biblical use of the phrase did not apply to the CE mark, it was still interesting to hear the phrase used. He responded that he did not know what I was talking about. I then asked him if he had ever read the book of Revelation in the Bible. He said his pastor had told his church that they should not read the book of Revelation because only a pastor could understand it.

When you consider that there are many people limited in the ability to understand the Bible by either ability or interest as well as religious leaders who may wish to avoid difficult questions altogether, it should not be surprising that there are many instances of Biblical illiteracy.


Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism? Nepotism: The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by giving them jobs.

In the secular world giving a friend a salaried position over another person more qualified is seen as having potentially moral conflict.  However, I am not sure such a moral issue exists within a church setting.  Then again I could imagine, especially for a ministry that has high revenue, where the 'leader' could pass the reins down to his son, raising the moral issue.  Also established denominations that have somewhat standardized salaries which are not inferior to secular professions may also consider the issue but in what sense I am not personally clear.

What I was wondering is that is this actually a recognized issue in any denomination or is nepotism fully accepted within Christianity?

To be honest I have not thought about it enough to have an opinion in if it should, or at least in what sense it should be considered, but that is not my question here.

My real question here is: Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?

Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?

Short answer: Yes

The modern Catholic Church does, as of June 22, 1692.

  Pope Innocent XII. Innocent XII gave nepotism a death blow by his
  celebrated Bull "Romanum decet Pontificem," 22 June 1692.

However, it does not appear to have actually ended the practice.

  Romanum decet pontificem was later incorporated into the Code of Canon
  Law of 1917 in canons 240, 2; 1414, 4; and 1432, 1.5 In 1694,
  Innocent XII's series of reforms was capped off with an expensive
  campaign to eliminate the venality of offices while reimbursing their
  current holders.[6]

  However, following Romanun decet pontificem, only three of the eight
  popes of the 18th century did not make a nephew or brother cardinal.

Also, the Assembly of God has this rule: (page 34)

  Nepotism The university may employ persons from the same immediate family when his/her individual qualifications are such that they
  represent the best possible choice for a given position. However,
  members of the same immediate family may not be employed in a
  situation where one member may have direct administrative
  responsibility for the other. This policy applies to all employees,
  whether hired on a full-time or part-time status. For purposes of this
  policy, immediate family shall be defined as father, mother, husband,
  wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
  brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, and/or daughter-in-law.

Also, the United Methodist Church requires local Churches to address Nepotism:

  ¶702. Amenability and Program Accountability--

  All official general church organizations, groups, committees, councils, boards, and agencies of The United Methodist Church shall
  adopt a code of ethics, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality,
  whistleblower protection, record retention and document destruction
  and nepotism policies, applicable to both members and employees, which
  embody and live out our Christian values.

I'm sure there's more.  I can't find it, but I'd bet that the major Lutheran divisions have policies, considering that Nepotism was one of Martin Luther's issues with the Catholic Church.


Do Mormons believe in the immortality of the soul? Some scriptures refer to the soul as something that can die.

For example, Acts 3, verse 23:

  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that
  prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

And Ezekiel 18, verse 4:

  Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
  soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Some scriptures say that there is no life after death.

For example, Psalm 146, verses 3 and 4:

  Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is
  no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that
  very day his thoughts perish.

What is the LDS interpretation of these verses, according to their doctrine? Do Mormons believe that man has an immortal soul?

Mormons believe the soul/spirit is immortal/eternal. There are four phases of the soul:

Pre-earth life-soul before birth
Earth life-soul joined with physical body
Spirit world-after death soul goes to spirit paradise/prison
Resurrection-soul is reunited with perfect body forever

Onto the scriptures. Acts 3:23 has a footnote on the word destroyed that points to two scriptures in Doctrine and Covenants, both saw basically the same thing so in D&C 133:63

  63 And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people.

So destroyed in this context just means to be cut off from among God's people, or the saints.

Ezekiel 18:4 mentions the soul dying. Mormons don't believe death means destroying or the end, rather it means separation. Physical death is the separation of spirit from body, but it isn't this definition used in this scripture. The other death is spiritual death, where when man sins he is separated from God's presence, which is the usage in Ezekiel 18:4. If a man repents he forsakes sin and turns back to God, and thus can overcome spiritual death.

Psalms 146:3-4 is referencing physical death and once the spirit leaves the body the body returns to the earth. The body no longer has a spirit and has no thought, the spirit still lives in the spirit world. James 2:26 on the body being dead:

  26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Also in Psalms 146 His and he refers to the physical body since it mentions he returneth to the earth; so the next line refers to the body losing it's thoughts, because the spirit has left it, not the spirit dying (being destroyed/ending).

From Answers to Gospel Questions Volume 4 page 183 by Joseph Fielding Smith (the question that is being asked is on Ecclesiastes 9:4,5,10 and seems like a similar question to yours):

  ...the body is laid away in the grave peacefully and it knows nothing as to the affairs of a busy world....The death of the mortal body does not bring a death of the spirit.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain John 8:58-59 in a way that accords with their doctrine? The Jehovah's witness' version of the bible the NWT translates these verses as:

  58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59  So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (emphasis added)

KJV,ESV,NIV,NRSV,NASB all translate the bold section in v58 as "I am", (source) which on the surface, seems to be a direct reference to the way God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush:

  13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
  14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:14-15 NIV (emphasis added, cf. v14 in different versions)

As such, it would seem logical for the Jews to want to stone Jesus for (in their eyes) blasphemy.

This Q&A on the biblical hermeneutics site addresses which translation of those particular words is preferable, so I don't wish to re-hash that ground, but to ask, given the sense imparted by the following verse (i.e. that the Jews regarded what Jesus was saying as blasphemous) how can it be logically maintained that Jesus was not referencing the name (or title, or description - that particular distinction should be irrelevant) of God as revealed to Moses at the burning bush and applying it to himself?

I actually do not see a problem here. The Jehovah's Witness group teaches that God the Father created Jesus first (source), then Jesus created everything else (source). So they do believe that Jesus existed before his incarnation.

To the Jews, this is an irrelevant distinction. It is blasphemous either way.

"Jesus is God" = blasphemy - stone him
"Jesus was created by God before everything else" = blasphemy - stone him.

Anything about "I am" being in reference to God the Father, explicitly, is simply denied and translated accordingly in their New World Translation. Whether their translation is valid or not is a question for the Hermeneutics site.


Any instructions given by the church fathers on how to receive the gift of tongues? 1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)

  Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not
  forbid speaking in tongues.

In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.

However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any instructions given by the early church fathers on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue.

Yes and No
The church fathers gave no specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues.
However, we can ask God for anything (including gifts) and he can give it to us. There's also credence to believe that the more often and sincerely we ask for them the more likely he is to give them to us (like in the parable of the persistent widow and the evil judge).

John 14:13-14 NLT Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Luke 18:7b-8a ESV And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily.

Paul here is telling the Corinthians that they can pray to ask God for the gift of interpretation. It stands to reason that they could pray for the gift to speak in tongues as well.

1 Corinthians 14:13 ESV Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.

But in the end it's all in the wisdom and decision of God to give his gifts to whom he wills. You can ask all you want and God might still say 'No'; but he might say 'Yes'.

1 Corinthians 12:11 ESV All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.


Are Christians allowed to practice Eastern martial arts? I know some people, Christians, who study Eastern martial arts. They explain this by saying that they do not practice the spiritual aspects of karate or kung-fu; but they use only the physical component of martial arts (i.e., they study it as gymnastics).

The spiritual component of Eastern martial arts can be substituted with prayer to God.

In general, yes, it is allowed.  However, I want to point out this verse:

1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.

This verse comes right before a passage talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols.  In general, this is allowed for us.  However we have to be careful to make sure that what we are doing does not take us away from God, but brings us closer.

1 Corinthians 10:31
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

If we follow God and do everything for his Glory, we're doing things the right way.
Summary
If you're feeling like God is calling you to not participate in any activity, you should avoid that activity in order to glorify God.  Otherwise, feel free to participate in that activity so long as you do it for God's glory.


What is the understanding between the Genesis account and the book of Abraham account of creation? (LDS) There seems to be a clear difference between the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible in terms of creation:

The Pearl of Great Price

  And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
  beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the
  heavens and the earth. - Abraham 4:1

The Bible

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

How does an LDS member interpret this distinction? Why does the Pearl of Great Price change from one God to multiple 'Gods'?

According to Biblical Hermeneutics, The Hebrew scripture implied a plural God ('Elohim') in singular context which in a Protestant/Catholic perspective would be perceived as the Triune God; How is this specific case interpreted from an LDS perspective?  https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8331/why-is-elohim-translated-as-god-rather-than-gods-in-genesis-11

Moreover if Jesus created the world, in Genesis 1:31, the word 'he' is used as a singular alongside 'God saw all he made' while God remains as Elohim in Hebrew acting as a plural in a singular context. Can Elohim be used for both Jesus and The Father in the LDS church?

  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. - Genesis 1:31

God
LDS worship one God, the Father, and that we must not have any other gods before Him.  [God the Father, Exodus 20:3] God is also referred to as Elohim, the father of Jesus Christ and our spirits.  Teachings: Joseph F. Smith
Godhead
The trinity consists of 3 distinct and separate beings, united with one common purpose.  God (Father), Christ (Son), Holy Ghost. [Godhead]
The Creation
When the book of Abraham references "the Gods", saying, "they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth," [Abraham 4:1] it refers to those who participated in forming the earth.  LDS believe that Elohim (God) created the world through the son, Jehovah (Christ) [Moses 2:1] and that others participated including Michael (Adam), and a "host of noble and great ones."  [Christ and the Creation] "The noble and great ones" were spoken of as a subset of the group of intelligences [Abraham 3:22], which the prophet Spencer W. Kimball clarified "That assemblage included us all."  So, in the context of the creation, "the gods" refers to two or more of Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and some of us (the noble and great ones).
Four accounts of the creation
The LDS church believes in 4 scriptural accounts of the creation: Genesis, Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price), Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price), the temple account.  This may seem like too many, but the Book of Mormon warns about not being accepting of more revelation in 2 Nephi 29:3-13.  The articles of Faith suggests that the modern bible we have is not translated 100% correctly Article of Faith 8 and for that reason the book of Moses was written through revelation to Joseph Smith [Four accounts of the creation] . Brigham Young taught that "no revelation is ever received in its fullness," in other words, "no revelation can be defined by any single combination of words."
Additional References
There is a great talk by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland about the godhead [The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent]


Is there any evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas before the birth of Christ Jesus While doing research into a question about the Aztec and Mayan peoples I found an article from the official web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which suggests that Jesus appeared to people of Jewish descent in the American continents:

  “Jesus spent His mortal life near Jerusalem, teaching the Jews of His gospel. However, Jesus also taught people of Jewish descent in another land: the American continents...   The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture that details God’s teachings to people who lived in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400.” Source: https://www.comeuntochrist.org/blog/what-jesus-christs-visit-to-the-americas-means-to-us

According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ had twelve Nephite disciples.  Apparently, Jesus visited the New World after his death and resurrection.  Moroni was the last Nephite prophet, historian, and military commander who supposedly lived in the Americas in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. He is later known as the Angel Moroni.

History records how Christianity was brought to the Aztecs and Mayans by the Spanish conquistadors after 1517.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

But is there any evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas before then or that Jesus Christ brought the gospel to native peoples living in the Americas?

EDIT:  Regarding the article on archaeological evidence to support the events recorded in the Book of Mormon, although the question (and the answer) is interesting, it does not answer my question.

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion by Mason Wheeler that “a large corpus of evidence exists which, while not enough to conclusively prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon... definitely demonstrates that the book is worthy of serious attention and consideration.”

However, I disagree with his assertion that “(they haven't even managed to do that with the Bible, so it would be unfair to hold another work that claims to be scripture to such a high standard).”  What’s good enough to support the truthfulness of the Bible is good enough to support the truthfulness in the Book of Mormon, but archaeology is not the proof I seek.

What evidence is there to support the claim that Jesus "taught people of Jewish descent in another land: the American continents"?

No overwhelming evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas, but there is some. No evidence for Jesus Christ bringing the gospel to native people living in the Americas besides the Book of Mormon itself.

As a quick note the Church of Jesus Christ does not believe or teach that the people recorded in the Book of Mormon were the only residents of the Americas.

Also, like the Bible, the Book of Mormon isn't meant to prove itself scientifically but was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations"

Some evidence:

DNA: there is no way to prove or disprove Native Americans descended from Jews using DNA. 1
Language (oral/written):

indian language is the very idiom and genius of Hebrew2
similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew3

Traditions/rites/beliefs:

there is a common belief in one supreme God/Great Spirit
divided into tribes (12 tribes/indian tribes)
their manner of counting the months through the lunar year
their fasts and religious rites which they believed helped cleanse them of their sins
their laws of uncleanliness and marital separation during a women’s menstrual period
their ritual purification after touching the dead
their cities of refuge
their manner of burial of and mourning for the dead
their perpetuating the name of a deceased brother through remarriage of his wife2

1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

2 The History of the American Indians, by James Adair 1775

3 Lets Void the Void, by Brian Stubbs