The lake of fire and the New Jerusalem as two different perspectives of God Has there been such a doctrine in Christianity that would put forth the idea that the sphere of eternal torments prepared for those who have rejected God, the sphere that is depicted as the lake of fire in Revelation, is nothing else, but God Himself, or rather the perspective of God by those who have rejected Him (and, consequently, the sphere of eternal blessings prepared for those who have received God, the sphere that is depicted as the New Jerusalem in Revelation, is nothing else, but God Himself, or rather the perspective of God by those who have received Him)? If yes, please, give me the name of that theologian and possibly the title of his work, in which he presents this doctrine.

There is a controversial speech/essay "The river of fire" by Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros along these lines, available online at Glory to God for All Things.

A representative sample:

``Paradise and hell are one and the same River of God, a loving fire which embraces and covers all with the same beneficial will, without any difference or discrimination. The same vivifying water is life eternal for the faithful and death eternal for the infidels; for the first it is their element of life, for the second it is the instrument of their eternal suffocation; paradise for the one is hell for the other. Do not consider this strange. The son who loves his father will feel happy in his father's arms, but if he does not love him, his father's loving embrace will be a torment to him.''

This essay is far from being doctrine, judging from the multitude of online discussions about its orthodoxy. I've heard somewhat similar, less stark comments from Fr. Robert Arida and from Fr. Andrew Damick (and, presumably, one can find hints of it in the ancient fathers, e.g. in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian). For what it's worth, it made sense to me when I read it, but the commentary/rebuttal by Vladimir Moss (available at Orthodox Christian Books) rings true for me as well.


Has the Catholic Church ever attempted a local substitute for the word Amen? The suffix 'Amen' has been in use  in the prayers of virtually all Christian denominations across the world, though the pronunciation differs from place to place. Given that the names of God and Jesus have local adaptations, it is intriguing that 'Amen' has a  universally accepted, uniquely single form. I am, therefore, curious to know if any local church of the Catholic denomination has ever attempted a translated version of 'Amen' in its own  language.

The short answer is Yes.

Some French speaking communities often employ the Ainsi soit-il ending at the end of some of their prayers. Although the use of Amen is by far the norm, many people who speak French still use this alternative ending to their prayers.

  For those who wanted prayers: here's the "Hail Mary.

  Je vous salue, Marie, pleine de grâce.
   Le Seigneur est avec vous. Vous êtes bénie entre toutes les femmes, et Jésus, le fruit de vos entrailles, est béni.
  Sainte Marie, mère de Dieu, priez pour nous pauvres pêcheurs, maintenant et à l'heure de notre mort.
  Ainsi soit-il. - Hail Mary Prayer

The word Amen simply means so be it.

It would not be a surprise to me if some Native American languages have adopted a local variation to the endings of some of their prayers. Being simply a traditional way of ending prayers, Rome would not interfere with a local custom. Here is an example of the Our Father in Quiripi:

  Quiripi translation

  Noûshin aûsequamuk terre
   wérrettepantammunatch wòweztâuonatch kowésewunk
   Peamoutch' kúkkussootúmmowunk,
   kòrantàmmowunk neratch
   sket'ôkke nenar âusequamuk terre,
   Mèsonah èa kèsuk kónkesekatush noméetsounk,
   petúkkenêag akquantamínah nomàtchereúnganansh
   nenar tàkquantaminan ewojek nomàtcherehéaqueàguk,
   Asquonsàkkongonan rame-re mítchemôuretounk,
   webe kûppoquohwhèriggamínah wutche madjk'
   wutche kèkatah kètassootómoonk,
   quah milkèssowunk quah àíttarwejanúnguesówunk
   michème quah michème: Ne râtch.

  English version

  Our Father, who art in heaven,
   Hallowed be thy Name.
   Thy kingdom come,
   Thy will be done,
   On earth as it is in heaven.
   Give us this day our daily bread,
   And forgive us our trespasses,
   As we forgive those who trespass against us.
   And lead us not into temptation,
   But deliver us from evil.
   For thine is the kingdom,
   and the power, and the glory,
   For ever and ever. Amen.

Algonquian and Iroquoian Uses:

  Also called "Indian Masses", a number of variations on the Roman Rite developed in the Indian missions of Canada and the United States. These originated in the 17th century, and some remained in use until the Second Vatican Council. The priest's parts remained in Latin, while the ordinaries sung by the schola were translated into the vernacular (e.g., Mohawk, Algonquin, Micmac, and Huron). They also generally featured a reduced cycle of native-language propers and hymns. At present they are rarely used. - Latin liturgical rites

Historically, Soþlice was used in Old English which could be translated Truly/Amen/So be it.

  AD 995, Old English

  Fæder ūre, ðū ðē eart on heofonum,Sī ðīn nama gehālgod.Tō becume ðīn rice.Gewurde ðīn willaOn eorþan swā swā on heofonum.Urne gedæghwamlīcan hlāf syle ūs tōdæg.And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas,Swā swā wē forgyfaþ ūrum gyltendum.And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge,ac alȳs ūs of yfele. Sōþlice.

The oldest Our Father in French ends with Issi seit.

More examples may be found here using an alternative ending to prayers other than Amen, including Token's Quenya language of the Our Father .


How long was David on the run from Saul? When Saul suspected that David was going to take his throne, he tried to capture David to prevent this from happening. How long was Saul chasing David?

The short answer is: We don't know for sure because there are very few dates or ages given in the stories of Saul and David in the Bible.

We cannot even be certain of the length of Saul's reign, or of how old he was when he began to reign—information that is commonly provided for kings of Judah and Israel in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. That information probably was originally contained in 1 Samuel 13:1. However, the Hebrew text in that verse seems to be corrupted, and the verse does not occur at all in the Septuagint (see that verse in the Blue Letter Bible).

Though Acts 13:21 states that Saul reigned for 40 years, this seems to be based on traditional sources, since the Hebrew Bible itself provides no length for Saul's reign. Or perhaps it is based on 2 Samuel 2:10, which states that Saul's youngest son Ishbaal, or Ish-bosheth, was 40 when he briefly succeeded Saul on the throne for the northern tribes. However, that age seems likely to be a scribal error. Ishbaal seems not even to have been of fighting age (20+, see Numbers 1:3) at the time of Saul's final battle and his death, when Ishbaal's three older brothers, who were of fighting age, died along with their father (see 1 Samuel 31). On this basis, some scholars believe that Saul's reign was probably only about twenty years long, and that Ishbaal was probably twenty years old at most when he succeeded his father.

We also do not know how old David was when he was anointed by Samuel to (eventually) succeed Saul as king in 1 Samuel 16:1–13. Nor do we know how old David was when King Saul first called him into service, in 1 Samuel 16:14-23. However, at that time, a servant of Saul describes David as, among other things, "a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence" (1 Samuel 16:18). Although some have pictured David as a mere teenager when he went into Saul's service, this description suggests that he was more likely a young man of fighting age, meaning at least twenty years old, at that time.

One age we do know is how old David was at the time he succeeded Saul as king of Judah in the south:

  David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. (2 Samuel 5:4–5, emphasis added)

This beginning of David's reign as king took place shortly after Saul's death.

Combined with the above likely minimum age of David at the time he went into Saul's service, this suggests that Saul and David's interactions with one another took place over a period of a decade or less. However, once again, this is based on inference drawn from the story, since we have no definite ages or dates for the beginning of this time period.

The only other definite date/age figure we are given in the entire story is the time period David took refuge in Philistine territory to escape Saul's attempts to assassinate him:

  The length of time that David lived in the country of the Philistines was one year and four months. (1 Samuel 27:7)

We are told a few verses earlier, in 1 Samuel 27:4, that Saul stopped pursuing David when Saul heard that David had fled to Philistine territory. It was only after Saul's death that David returned from Philistine territory to the territory of Judah, his own tribe. David is still in Ziklag, in Philistine territory near that of Judah, when he receives word of the death of Saul and his three eldest sons, and mourns their death (see 2 Samuel 1). He then at last returns to the territory of Judah, and is anointed king there, as told in 2 Samuel 2:1–7.

This means that the only definite timing we are given is that the final period of Saul's hostility against David, when David was out of Saul's reach in Philistine territory, lasted one year and four months.

Beyond that, we can only speculate and make educated guesses based on the narration of events between 1 Samuel 16, when David first went into Saul's service, and 1 Samuel 31, which tells the story of Saul's final battle and his death.

Such speculation and educated guesses would likely push this answer beyond the length parameters of this site.

However, one expression of previous efforts in this direction is found in the dating associated with the various chapters that is provided in some editions of the King James Version of the Bible. That dating places 1 Samuel 16, when David first enter's Saul's service, as well as the following two chapters, in which Saul begins to become jealous of David and to fear David, in 1018 BC, and 1 Samuel 31, in which Saul dies, in 1011 BC. Traditional Christian scholarship, then, has placed the time period in which Saul sought David's life and David fled from Saul at about seven years.

That time period also does not have any definitive biblical basis. However, it is probably as good an estimate as any for a time period whose length we simply do not know and cannot determine for certain.


Covering of the hair for women, and beards in 1st Century Palestine Note:  This is just a historical point, it isn't judging anyone, just trying to understand things in their historical context.

In a lecture I heard that in 1st century Palestine:

1. All women used to cover their hair except for Gentile women and Prostitutes
2. All men had beards except for gentile men and gays.

Where could I verify this?

I know Paul has a strong statement regarding women not covering their
hair in church:

  For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her
  hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut
  off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-6.htm

It might be clearer to ask about Jewish versus other men and women. My impression is that most women wore head coverings at that time, and most men wore beards, but customs varied greatly among non-Jewish people. Prostitutes likely would not wear head coverings. I don't see homosexuals as a group that would be likely to have a common practice about beards, though doubtless some shaved to be more feminine.

Michael Marlowe discusses head coverings and other clothing issues at http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html . The Bible makes clear that the Jews are to remain a distinct people, and should not adopt many of the customs of the people around them (gentiles).

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. (Leviticus 18:3. cf. also Deuteronomy 12:29-32 and 2 Kings 17:13-15.)

The LORD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests ... and on the day of the LORD's sacrifice, I will punish ... all who array themselves in foreign attire. (Zephaniah 1:8)

Marlowe suggests that Jewish men of the first century did not cover their heads when they prayed. They likely covered or uncovered their heads for practical reasons only. Women normally kept their heads covered any time they were outside of their home.

Philo of Alexandria refers to a woman's head covering as a "symbol of modesty", suggesting that an innocent woman would be uncomfortable in its absense.


Calvinism: alternatives to evanescent grace? It appears to me that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" contain a practical contradiction. The T in TULIP states that the reprobate (and even the unregenerate elect) are zealous in their hatred of God. The reprobate completely and totally despise God with their words, thoughts, actions, etc. The P in TULIP states that all of God's elect will be regenerated and will persevere in faith unto death. Now these two points do not seem contradictory in and of themselves, but what of the subject of apostasy? From Biblical texts and our own experience, we come to understand that some people who appear to love God eventually lose interest for one reason or another and fall away from the faith. Jesus even speaks of such people, who accept the gospel with great joy, only to eventually fall back into the world because they get busy and distracted with the cares of daily life.
It is a typical Calvinist response to simply say that those people were never saved to begin with. Fair enough, but if they were never saved, then they were never regenerate, and if they were never regenerate then they must experience vicious hatred towards God according to TULIP's T. So what would compel a reprobate hater of God to go to church, read their Bible, pray fervently, ask God for forgiveness of sins, get baptized, etc. These do not seem to be actions of people who despise God. Why would a reprobate man experience joy upon hearing the gospel, as Jesus plainly stated?
To Calvin's credit, he attempted to plug this hole by coming up with a doctrine called evanescent grace. Roughly speaking, God in his good pleasure, actively causes a deception to fall upon some reprobate men, which gives them a fleeting desire to worship him and follow Christ. However, this false faith is never the 'real deal' and at the appointed time, God removes the illusion and leaves the man in a worse state than he began. This gives God all the more justification to judge the man to death and condemnation.
Understandably, Calvinists do not appear to have endeared themselves to this doctrine. I'd venture to say that many Calvinists have never ever heard of it. But if a Calvinist does not subscribe to evanescent grace, then there must be some other explanation as to what would compel a God-hating reprobate to praise the name of Jesus Christ, even if only for a limited period of time. What explanations, other than evanescent grace, have Calvinists posited to solve this seeming contradiction in their theology?

Our natural, fallen inner disposition is to hate the God of the Bible – the true and living God who created us – and to replace Him with gods (or “concepts of god”) more to our liking. -- http://lakeopc.net/2017/calvinism-101-total-depravity/
Total Depravity means that every sinner is possessed with a nature, inherited from Adam's fall, that is completely hostile toward God. We were all born with a "positive" aversion to God and His authority. By nature, every sinner wants "his own way." Romans 8:7 makes this fact very clear. "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." -- https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-total-depravity
But a man who is totally depraved can not will to be saved. He hates God and wants nothing to do with Christ's death. So it must not be said that Christ died for all men. -- http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

Total depravity is not itself a zealous hatred of God, but an emphasis on the entire corruption of the whole person. Every faculty of the sinner has been corrupted by the fall. Nevertheless, unregenerate sinners hate God at different degrees, while regenerate sinners retain their sinful natures until glorification wherein there is a conflict between the new man and the old man, which explains why the regenerate still sin.
When we meet unregenerate people who by ordinary standards are nice people, we can be sure that God's grace is restraining their evil natures, and even recognize with thanksgiving the good that the unregenerate does at times, receiving it as it were by the hand of the Lord.
A falsely converted person may well have received real grace, just not regenerating grace. They would be all the more likely to receive these restraining graces because of their entry into the church where God's law will be taught and they will have godly examples from others.
Once clarifying our definitions, it appears the objection is now gone.


What is the biblical basis against the idea of luck? I'm curious what the Bible says about Luck.  Is this something that is a real occurrence or is every little detail ordained and controlled by God (fate)?

I searched biblegateway and did not find "luck" under NIV. Then I tried NASB.  The closest thing I've found comes out the of Good News Translation (which I don't trust at all) and out of the book of Sirach (which I've never heard of).

  Sirach 20:9 (GNT)
  Bad luck can sometimes lead to success, and a stroke of good luck can sometimes lead to loss

There are more sayings in that book and translation, however, this really doesn't satisfy me, since I've never heard of the book of Sirach (and I really don't trust the Good News translation).

What is the biblical case against the concept of Luck?

Just to be clear, I'm referring to Luck as the random chance—coincidence—that brings good or bad fortune.  I'm not referring to an external force that influences the good or bad that happens in our lives.

Clearly, if there is an external force that brings us good or bad fortune, that could be directly attributed to God, Satan, demons, or angels from a biblical/Christian stance.

Scope: Just to be clear, I'm interested primarily in the Protestant Bible, but I'm willing to accept Catholic translations and Deuterocanonical books.

Proverbs 16:33 (New Living Translation)
We may throw the dice, but the Lord determines how they fall.

Another translation:

NIV:
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Apparently, therefore, luck as such does not exist but providence does.


What is the Biblical evidence that Jesus' mother was one of His disciples? The Roman Catholic Church venerates Mary as not only having been blessed to be the mother of Christ, but also as having been born without sin (Immaculate Conception), and to have been a perpetual virgin. Protestants do not believe the former, and most do not believe the latter either.

What is the Biblical basis for presuming that Mary was one of Jesus' disciples, i.e. a Christian?

Note - this is not meant to cast aspersions on any particular belief, and only looks for evidence of her conversion and belief in her son's work on the cross, not whether she was born without sin, or was a virgin after Jesus' birth.

Luke records Mary's faith on the occasion of the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-56). Gabriel informs her (v35) that "the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God", and she replies (v38) "let it be done to me according to your word". When Elizabeth addresses her as "the mother of my Lord" (v43), Mary proclaims with the Magnificat (vv46-55), invoking her faith in "God my saviour", and her expectation of the fulfilment of God's promise. This would seem to demonstrate both knowledge and trust in the Messiah-hood of Jesus.

After the ascension of Jesus, Mary is recorded as praying together with the remaining apostles, in the upper room:

  Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.  All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. Acts 1:12-14

From this continuation of Luke's account, it is clear that Mary retained faith in Jesus following his resurrection. At this point, he's spent several weeks instructing the disciples, so she is participating in prayer with people who have seen and spoken with the risen Lord. She could not have been praying together with them, in this way, if she did not share in the same faith.

(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)


Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation? The one I've been subscribing to for almost 2 years is this one

en-gb.christian#holiday@group.v.calendar.google.com

This can be accessed here or here I guess (re region: I have not seen any differences between these 2 for Nov2020-Dec2021).
I can no longer recall where I found this. When I look this up, I don't see, on the 1st page of my google search results, any official site. I notice it

is missing: 'Christ the King' (but it's always on Sunday, so ok fine) and

is missing: New year's, which I mistaken in thinking it wasn't a holy day of obligation in certain countries because apparently new year is precisely the day Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God is celebrated in Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church)

is missing: Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on new year or any other day of the calendar

contains: Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

Questions:

Of what denomination/s and region/s is this above calendar?

I'm realising just now that the 'gb' is possibly (some subset of) the UK.

(According to Wiki: The UK doesn't have uniform holy days of obligation. See Scotland vs England and Wales. Also, each contains neither 'Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God' nor 'Feast of the Immaculate Conception'.)

Not sure it's (UK or whatever) Catholic.

Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions? Or at least a list of google calendar links for each region (eg the philippines, hong kong, united states, argentina, etc) ? Hopefully, it includes all the holy days of obligation for all regions.

I'm talking about Roman Catholic, but if there's a calendar that contains both Roman and Eastern Catholic (This question extends to Eastern Catholicism and whatever is full communion with Roman Catholicism), then fine.

Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation?

Questions:

Of what denomination/s and region/s is this above calendar?

Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions? Or at least a list of google calendar links for each region (eg the philippines, hong kong, united states, argentina, etc) ? Hopefully, it includes all the holy days of obligation for all regions.

I'm talking about Roman Catholic(ism).

1.) Of what region is this above calendar?
The liturgical calendar you linked to is what the Church calls a particular liturgical calendar for England. That much is obvious.
2.) Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions?
Oh how I hate to use Wikipedia as a unique source of information, but the question is so vast liturgically speaking, that this is the only source with the vast information necessary. The article on the General Roman Calendar
The article gives the entire General Roman Calendar as well as particular liturgical calendars of the main religious orders as well as all local national liturgical calendars.

General Roman Calendar
For historical forms of the General Roman Calendar, see Tridentine Calendar, General Roman Calendar of 1954, General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII, General Roman Calendar of 1960, and General Roman Calendar of 1969.
The General Roman Calendar is the liturgical calendar that indicates the dates of celebrations of saints and mysteries of the Lord (Jesus Christ) in the Roman Rite, wherever this liturgical rite is in use. These celebrations are a fixed annual date; or occur on a particular day of the week (examples are the Baptism of the Lord in January and the Feast of Christ the King in November); or relate to the date of Easter (examples are the celebrations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary). National and diocesan liturgical calendars, including that of the diocese of Rome itself as well as the calendars of religious institutes and even of continents, add other saints and mysteries or transfer the celebration of a particular saint or mystery from the date assigned in the General Calendar to another date.
Particular calendars
The General Calendar is printed, for instance, in the Roman Missal6 and the Liturgy of the Hours.7 These are up to date when printed, but additional feasts may be added later. For that reason, if those celebrating the liturgy have not inserted into the books a note about the changes, they must consult the current annual publication, known as the "Ordo", for their country or religious congregation. These annual publications, like those that, disregarding the feasts that are obligatory in the actual church where the liturgy is celebrated, list only celebrations included in the General Calendar,8 are useful only for the current year, since they omit celebrations impeded because of falling on a Sunday or during periods such as Holy Week and the Octave of Easter.
The feast days of saints celebrated in one country are not necessarily celebrated everywhere. For example, a diocese or a country may celebrate the feast day of a saint of special importance there (e.g., St. Patrick in Ireland, Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in the United States). Likewise, a particular religious institute may celebrate its founder or members of the institute, even if that saint is not listed on the universal calendar or is included in it only with a lower rank. The General Roman Calendar contains only those celebrations that are intended to be observed in the Roman Rite in every country of the world.
This distinction is in application of the decision of the Second Vatican Council: "Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance."

Simply scroll down to find the General Calendar of the Roman Rite. Further down you able to see all the Congregational Calendars (Each institute of consecrated life (religious institute or secular institute) also has its own calendar, with variations from the General Calendar). Continue further and you can read all the National Calendars and finally     Local calendars.
Eastern Rite Catholics have their own liturgical calendars and must found elsewhere as their calendars differ vastly when compared to the Roman Rite and even between themselves.
Here follows some examples of Eastern Rite Catholic Calendars:
Liturgical Calendar of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg, Canada
Maronite Catholic Lectionary


Why are Catholic bishops styled as archbishops? In the British Isles, bishops of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Churches are all styled "Right Reverend"; archbishops are "Most Reverend":

  The Rt Revd John Smith, Bishop of Salisbury
  The Most Revd Martin Jones, Archbishop of Liverpool

However, in other countries, Roman Catholic bishops are Most Reverend, even where the a Church in the Anglican Communion has a fairly substantial presence (like the United States). In the United States, bishops and archbishops of The Episcopal Church [Anglican] follow the British model, whereas Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops are all "Most Reverend".

How is that difference (between the custom in the British Isles and that in other Bishops' Conferences) explained?

I guess that the similarity between the Churches within the British Isles is a hangover from the Reformation, and it would appear to indicate that the distinction existed in the pre-Reformation Church and was carried into the Church of England. In which case, why is there no difference between Catholic bishops and archbishops outside Britain now? When were bishops elevated to archbishops' style?

Or, did the nascent Church of England separate the styles (so the Roman styles outside Britain are historic) and then the emancipated Catholic Church simply fall into line when the hierarchy was re-established in the United Kingdom?

I don't know where to look for an accurate telling of the history.

(I'm British. The question is occasioned by finding an American bishop styled as "Most Reverend" and thinking "But he's not an archbishop!")

Inspired by a link in Ken Graham's answer I read the Wikipedia article on Archbishops. That contains a paragraph germane to the question but which Ken doesn't quote:

  Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops are styled "The Most Reverend" and addressed as "Your Excellency." In English-speaking countries, a Catholic archbishop is addressed as "Your Grace", while a Catholic bishop is addressed as "Your Lordship". Before December 12, 1930, the title "Most Reverend" was only for archbishops, while bishops were styled as "Right Reverend." [18]

  Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren, Vol. 1, Page 20. Rt. Rev. Dominic Laurence Graessel. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore. Retrieved on 2016-11-19.

The article on Graessel says

  Before December 31, 1930, the title "Most Reverend" was reserved for archbishops; the other bishops were given the title of "Right Reverend." After that date, "Most Reverend" became general for all archbishops and bishops. (Canon Law Digest. Bouscaren, Vol. 1, P. 20).

Thus there are two potential dates for the introduction of "Most Reverend" for bishops.

I then searched for "31 December 1930" decree "Most Reverend" and found the Wikipedia article on the honorific Excellency which gives further details:

  By a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonial of 31 December 1930[5] the Holy See granted bishops of the Roman Catholic Church the title of Most Reverend Excellency (Latin, Excellentia Reverendissima). In the years following the First World War, the ambassadorial title of Excellency, previously given to nuncios, had already begun to be used by other Catholic bishops. The adjective Most Reverend was intended to distinguish the religious title from that of Excellency given to civil officials.  ...

  In some English-speaking countries, the honorific of Excellency does not apply to bishops other than the nuncio. In English law, Anglican archbishops are granted the title of Grace (Your Grace, His Grace, as for a duke), and bishops are granted the title of Lordship. The same titles are extended by courtesy to their Catholic counterparts, and continue in use in most countries that are or have been members of the Commonwealth. An exception is former British East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania).

  Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1931, p. 22; L'Osservatore Romano 24 January 1931.

The Acta are available online, although only in OCR form and thus do contain reading errors. The relevant decree is from what is usually called the Sacred Congregation of Rites and was indeed published on 31 December 1930:

  SACRA CONGREGATIO CAEREMONIALIS
  DECRETUM
  DE TITULO « EXCELLENTIAE REVERENDISSIMAE »

  Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XI , eo consilio ut dignitas eorum, qui cum in
  Ecclesiae gubernatione, tum in ipsa Pontificis Maximi Domo principes
  habent partes, maiore cotidie in honore sit, Purpuratorum Patrum percontatus
  sententiam, qui sacris caerimoniis regundis praepositi sunt, die
  11 mensis Decembris huius anni, arcessito viro hac in pagina subsignato,
  qui Sacrae Congregationi Caerimoniarum est a secretis, decrevit: Excellentiae
  Reverendissimae titulum, praeter quam Patriarchis et Latinae et
  Orientalis Ecclesiae, praeter quam Praelatis qui a flocculis vulgo appellantur,
  praeter quam Nuntiis et Internuntiis Apostolicis, tribuendum
  quoque esse Archiepiscopis atque Episcopis sive residentialibus sive titularibus
  tantum, itemque Magistro Pontificii cubiculi, Praelatis qui assident
  vel sunt a secretis in Sacris Romanis Congregationibus, Secretario
  Supremi Tribunalis Signaturae Apostolicae, Praelato Decano Sacrae
  Romanae Rotae ac denique Substituto Secretariae Status. Contrariis
  quibuslibet non obstantibus.

  Datum Romae, ex aedibus Sacrae Congregationis Caerimonialis, die
  31 Decembris 1930.
  gg-I. Card. GRANITO PIGNATELLI D I BELMONTE,
  Ep. Ostiensis et Albanensis, Praefectus
  B. Nardone, Secretarius.

That is:

  THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CEREMONIES
  DECREE ON THE TITLE "MOST REVEREND EXCELLENCY"

  So that the dignity of those who have the primary part of the governance of the Church, and especially of those in the house of the Pope itself, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XI, after inquiring the opinion of the Purple Fathers who have been placed in charge of the rules for sacred ceremonies [i.e. the members of the Sacred Congregation for Ceremonies], has decreed by this advice, given on the 11th of December of this year, and undersigned on this page by the representative called for from those set apart for the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies:

  The title of "Most Reverend Excellency" (except for Patriarchs of the Latin and Oriental Churches, and for Prelates who are given that name by courtesy, and except for Apostolic Nuntios and Messengers), is to be given to Archbishops and Bishops, both [bishops] by residence and [bishops] by title, as well as to the Master of the Papal Household, and to Prelates who assist at or are members of the Sacred Roman Congregations, the Secretariat of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Prelate Dean of the Roman Roat, and finally the Substitute Secretary of State. Anything at all to the contrary notwithstanding.

  Given at Rome, in the offices of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies, on the 31 December 1930.

  gg-I [sic] Cardinal GRANITO PIGNATELLI DI BELMONTE, Bishop of Ostia and Albano, Prefect
  B. Nardone, Secretary

  (translation Matt Gutting)

This says that the title "Most Reverend" tribuendum quoque esse Archiepiscopis atque Episcopis sive residentialibus sive titularibus tantum, "shall be given also to archbishops and bishops who are residential and also titular."

Thus my first hypothesis is correct and prior to this decree bishops were Right Reverend, as they still are in the British Isles and most Commonwealth countries.

The question still remains as to why the decree was not taken up within the Catholic hierarchy in Britain and the Commonwealth, although the cryptic reference to "English law" in the Excellency article is probably the reason. If I find that before someone else does, I'll update this answer.


What are the reasons for having special names for God/ Jesus? I was watching the "Truth Project" (a religious DVD) and the speaker kept referring to "Jehovah Jireh".    A recent answer here makes a reference to "Yahshua Ha-Maschiach", whom we have to infer is Jesus.

Q: What are the intended purposes by those who would use "unusual" names for God or Jesus?

My speculative answer is that such persons believe they are beholden to a specially refined orthodoxy-- hey we all do to some extent-- but believe they need to refer to a more special name in order to clue others that they have many false ideas about the "god" they worship.

If this answer is wrong, I beg forgiveness and correction.

some of the Names come from the difference in Language throughout the Bible.
Greek, Jewish, etc

that paired with what God can do or will do or who He is, makes a compound name of description like

  Yahshua Ha Mashiach is "Jesus the Messiah."

or

  Jehovah Rapha (The Lord who heals)

they are all names for the same God, to better describe who He is and what He does.

there are many compound names for Him throughout the Bible.

Elohim or El "Strong One"
Yahweh (YHWH) "to exist, be" {see Link below}
Adonai "Master, Owner"
Theos Greek Translated "God"
Kurios Greek Translated "Lord"
Despotes Greek Translated "Master"
Father

of which many Compound names are given

El Shaddai "God Almighty"
El Elyon "The Most High God"
El Olam "The Everlasting God"

And

Yahweh Jireh (Yireh) “The Lord will provide.”
Yahweh Nissi “The Lord is my Banner.”
Yahweh Shalom “The Lord is Peace.”
Yahweh Sabbaoth “The Lord of Hosts.”
Yahweh Maccaddeshcem “The Lord your Sanctifier.”
Yahweh Ro’i  “The Lord my Shepherd.”
Yahweh Tsidkenu “The Lord our Righteousness.”
Yahweh Shammah “The Lord is there.”
Yahweh Elohim Israel “The Lord, the God of Israel.”

there are many more than just these, but the resource that I used is a Website

The Names of God

it explains slightly better than I have and gives more insight into some of these names.

Really these Names are just descriptors of God


What is the Catholic Church's teaching on paying respect to one's in-laws? The fourth commandment says that one should respect one's parents. I wish to know if the Catholic Church has made some rules which would govern one's conduct towards one's father-in-law and mother-in-law.

What is the catholic Church's teaching on paying respect to one's in-laws?

Did not Our Lord say:

  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”. (John 13:34)

In-laws are simply our extended immediate extended family through marriage.

Our Lord also said:

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12: 30-31)

Do not forget that we must love and respect all people, strangers, in-laws as well as those we do not get along with. The Golden Rule applies to all people including our in-laws.

  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (Matthew 7:12)

The Fourth Commandment says that one should respect one's parents. In-laws are family by extension of marriage and they deserve our love and respect. It behooves us as Catholics to follow Our Lord’s words to the best of our ability.


How to harmonize teachings of Jesus and Paul about work? Jesus: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear ... Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6, Do Not Worry)

Paul: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat." (Thessalonians 3)

Both Jesus and Paul taught that we should love our neighbor. Paul was addressing a situation where the church had been generous in providing welfare for the needy, but those needy took advantage of this generosity and were becoming lazy and a burden to others. In Galatians 6, Paul says "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." We each of us go through seasons when we need others to help us, but we need to not be selfish and eventually resume responsibility for taking care of our own needs.

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul teaches families the same thing, insisting that before the church steps in, all family resources should be exhausted first:

  Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for
  their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an
  unbeliever.

Essentially, this was the first means-tested welfare program.


Why do some Pentecostal preachers claim that Lucifer was a worship leader? Here in Brazil, there are some Pentecostal preachers who claim that Satan (Lucifer) was the "Minister of Praise in heaven" or the "ruler of the Celestial Choir".

According to a Pentecostal perspective, what the biblical basis for such an assertion?

It is based on the understanding that some aspects of the Prophecy given by Ezekiel against the King of Tyre are more correctly directed at the demonic influence empowering that King identified to be Satan himself and the influence the KJV has had on the formation of Pentecostal doctrine.  Consider:

  12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:
  “You were the signet of perfection,
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
  13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
  sardius, topaz, and diamond,
      beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
      and crafted in gold were your settings
      and your engravings.
  On the day that you were created
      they were prepared.
  14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.
      I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
      in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
  15 You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
      till unrighteousness was found in you.
  16 In the abundance of your trade
      you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
      and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
      from the midst of the stones of fire.
  17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
      you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
      I exposed you before kings,
      to feast their eyes on you.
  18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
      in the unrighteousness of your trade
      you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
      it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
  19 All who know you among the peoples
      are appalled at you;
  you have come to a dreadful end
      and shall be no more forever.” - Ezekiel 28:12-19 ESV

It doesn't appear to be talking about just a man (despite that exact sense being given to the preceding verses). The particular sense of worship leader has come from translation of some of the obscure words in verse 13:

  13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. - Ezekiel 28:13 KJV (emphasis added - cf. other versions)

This has been taken to mean that musical instruments have been incorporated into the very form of the 'guardian cherub' which seemed to have a special place on 'the holy mountain of God' hence the inference that the being referred to was the leader of worship in heaven. That it's identity is that of Lucifer is seen more from comparing this passage and in particular verse 17 with Isaiah 14:12-14 (cf. also this on-line article).


Why is the term Immanuel/Emmanuel considered to be a title rather than a proper name? In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet foretells that a virgin will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel, which means "God with us".

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Isaiah 7:14 ESV

Matthew 1:22-23 references this prophecy and indicates that it was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.

  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).  Matthew 1:22-23 ESV

It is understood by many that Immanuel was not intended to be a proper name, but to be a title or description.  What is the basis for this understanding?

There are certainly many names and titles by which the Messiah is called. As well as "Emmanuel", Isaiah has in 9:6 (ESV):

  For to us a child is born,
      to us a son is given;
  and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
      and his name shall be called
  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
      Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Aquinas says (Summa Theologica 3.37.2 ad 1):

  All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means "salvation." For the name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is "God with us," designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us." 1

He therefore sees no real contradiction, since both names/titles are apt ways to speak about the same person. (He does not distinguish here between a name and a title, though he of course acknowledges that "Jesus" is the proper name of Jesus.)

John Calvin (Commentariorium in Isaiam prophetam) investigates the meaning of "and (she) shall call" (וְקָרָ֥את) in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. He asserts that the giving of a name, in Hebrew custom, was reserved to the father, and so since it is the mother who is doing the calling here, she must be doing something other than giving the child its regular everyday name. Calvin says she is announcing it like a herald (in hoc nomine promulgando, virginem fore instar praeconis), and it is a designation which is far more splendid than any mere man could have. This all points to it being something other than an ordinary personal name. He further notices (Commentarius in harmoniam evangelicam) that in Matthew, the verb is "they shall call", indicating the shared faith of all believers in the fact and purpose of the Incarnation. If we are all doing the calling together, then it sounds a lot less like the bestowing of a personal name, and a lot more like the recognition of the nature of Jesus, in the form of calling him by a particular special title.

1. in omnibus illis nominibus quodammodo significatur hoc nomen Iesus, quod est significativum salutis. Nam in hoc quod dicitur Emmanuel, quod interpretatur, nobiscum Deus, designatur causa salutis, quae est unio divinae et humanae naturae in persona filii Dei, per quam factum est ut Deus esset nobiscum.


In the tradition of Jehovah's Witnesses, does Romans 6:23 mean that all people who are resurrected have their sins blotted out? Since the Bible itself says there is to be a resurrection of the good and bad (Acts 24:15) how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain their position that death blots out the sins of all?
If death blots out sin would not all those resurrected be without sin?

The answer to this question lies in understanding judgement day from the Jehovah's Witnesses point of view.
We do not believe persons are resurrected  and judged worthy of eternal life or eternal anihilation based on their imperfect previous existence. Rather those sins are blotted out or paid for by death.
After resurection all persons righteous  and unrighteousness in their previous existence will be able to fully align themselves with Gods will if they choose to. Naturally those who previously had aligned themselves to the extent possible in their imperfect past life will find it easier to conform to Gods plan during the 1000 year judgement day.
The Awake January 2010  had  an article that explains JWs concepts on judgement day

What Is Judgment Day?

The Bible says that God “has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth.” (Acts 17:31) For many people the prospect of being subjected to any kind of judgment is unwelcome. Is that how you feel?

IF SO, you can find comfort in the fact that Judgment Day is a loving arrangement that will bring great blessings to the human family—including those who have died. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) Why is Judgment Day necessary? What will actually occur during that “day”?

Judgment Day—Why Needed?
When God placed humans on the earth, he did not intend it to be merely a proving ground for future life in another realm. He created humans to live forever on the earth. Although physically and mentally perfect, the first human couple rebelled against God. As a result, they lost the prospect of eternal life for themselves and brought sin and death to all of their descendants.—Genesis 2:15-17; Romans 5:12.

Judgment Day will be a period of a thousand years during which humans will have the opportunity to regain what Adam and Eve lost. * Notice that Acts 17:31, quoted above, says that Judgment Day will affect those living on “the inhabited earth.” Those receiving favorable judgment will live on earth and will enjoy everlasting life in perfect conditions. (Revelation 21:3, 4) Thus, Judgment Day helps to accomplish God’s original purpose for humans and the earth.

God’s appointed Judge is Christ Jesus. The Bible says that Jesus will “judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) Who are “the living” that will be judged? How will the dead come to life again on “the inhabited earth”?

Jesus Judges “the Living”
We are now nearing the foretold end of the present system of things, when God will destroy all elements of corrupt human society  and remove the wicked. Survivors of this system’s end are “the living” who will be judged.—Revelation 7:9-14; 19:11-16.

During that period of judgment, which will last 1,000 years, Christ Jesus along with 144,000 men and women resurrected to life in heaven will rule over the earth. They will serve as kings and priests, administering the benefits of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and progressively elevating faithful humans to physical and mental perfection.—Revelation 5:10; 14:1-4; 20:4-6.

During Judgment Day, Satan and the demons will be restrained from influencing human activity. (Revelation 20:1-3) However, at the end of Judgment Day, Satan will be allowed to test the loyalty of every human living. Those who remain loyal to God will have passed the test that Adam and Eve failed. They will be judged worthy of receiving everlasting life in the restored Paradise earth. Those who choose to rebel against God will be permanently destroyed, as will Satan and the demons.—Revelation 20:7-9.

Judging “the Dead”
The Bible says that during Judgment Day the dead will “rise up.” (Matthew 12:41) Jesus said that “the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29) This is not referring to disembodied souls of those who have died. The dead are totally unconscious and do not have a soul that survives death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14, 23, 24) Jesus will bring those asleep in death back to life again on earth.

Will the judgment of resurrected ones be based on what they did before their death? No. The Bible teaches that “he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) So, like those who survive the end of this system, those resurrected to life on earth will be judged “according to their deeds” during Judgment Day. (Revelation 20:12, 13) Depending on the final outcome of their actions, this will turn out to be either a resurrection that results in everlasting life or a resurrection that results in destruction. Many of those restored to life will for the first time come to know about Jehovah God and his requirements for life. They will have the opportunity to live in harmony with God’s will and receive everlasting life on earth.

No Reason for Fear
Judgment Day will be not only a time of instruction from God but also a time for those alive to apply what they learn and enjoy the blessings that result. Just imagine your joy at being reunited with resurrected loved ones and growing to human perfection along with them!

Just imagine your joy at being reunited with resurrected loved ones
God will allow Satan to test the loyalty of human creatures at the end of Judgment Day. But there is no need to be anxious or fearful. By the end of Judgment Day, all living will be fully equipped to face this final test. Judgment Day will thus be a part of the accomplishment of God’s purpose to undo all the effects of the original rebellion against God in the garden of Eden.

So yes all persons resurrected will have a clean slate, as it were,with God. Their eternal salvation is based on how they are judged during the 1000 year  judgement day and their successfully withstanding the final testing period when Satan is released for a short time at the end if judgement day.


Did John Calvin say "The worst of plagues is human reason"? I have searched high and low for the source of this quote, attributed to John Calvin, but to no avail.  This link provides approximately 425 quotes, but I could not find "The worst of plagues is human reason".  https://www.azquotes.com/author/2355-John_Calvin
My difficulty is that it seems to me the quote is more likely to have come from Martin Luther.  For example, Luther said the following on this subject:

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.  Source: Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.  Source: Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75

If John Calvin did say "The worst of plagues is human reason" then I need to know where those seven words came from in order to put them into their proper context and respond to the person who has asked me to explain what Calvin meant.
I fear I may be on a wild goose chase here, and time is running out before my response is due.  Any help from the community would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

Did John Calvin say “the worst of plagues is human reason”?
Although I drew a blank on John Calvin, I pursued the matter by searching through quotes attributed to Martin Luther.  There were 950 of them, but many were repeated or were variations with only slight differences.  https://www.azquotes.com/author/9142-Martin_Luther
Allow me to share with you two relevant quotes that I found.  Taken from ‘The Table Talk of Martin Luther’, he had this to say about human reason:

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

The partial quote I presented by Walter Kaufmann in ‘The Faith of a Heretic’ said this in full:

There is on earth among all dangers, no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God.  For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded and destroyed.

By way of explaining what Martin Luther meant, here is a short extract from the book ‘Here I Stand – Martin Luther’ by Roland Bainton (Lion, 1978):

Martin Luther said some things about human reason that have been wrested out of context to make it seem as if he was an enemy of reason because of his stress on faith. That is a misrepresentation, because he only railed against a particular kind of human reasoning.

Luther said that, “Common sense and natural reason are highly offended that God by his mere will deserts, hardens, and condemns…  Natural reason, however much it is offended, must admit the consequences of the omniscience and omnipotence of God...  Since God is true and one, he is utterly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason.  Therefore his justice must also be incomprehensible.”

Many people misunderstand Luther at this point – he knew that the reason why faith is so hard, and reason is so inadequate, is a problem far deeper than logic...  At Worms and often elsewhere he asked to be instructed from Scripture and reason.  In this sense reason meant logical deduction from known premises; and when Luther railed against ‘the harlot reason’... he had in mind the way in which man ordinarily behaves, feels, and thinks.  It is not what God says that is a foreign tongue, but what God does that is utterly incomprehensible.

“Luther knew that philosophy was unequal to the task of comprehending the mysteries of God. Only faith can grasp the foolishness of the cross, which is hid from the wise and prudent.  Reason must retire.  She cannot understand that “God hides his power in weakness, his wisdom in folly, his goodness in severity, his justice in sins, his mercy in anger.

I think it is safe to say that Calvin believed that man is corrupted by sin and that sin has affected body and soul, mind and will.  Martin Luther (whose theology Calvin admired and respected) also held to a similar view.  Human reasoning is therefore fatally flawed.  The mind of the created can in no way comprehend or understand the mind of the Creator.
Did John Calvin say “the worst of plagues is human reason”?  He may have said that, or something similar.  If so, then it was in harmony with the views of Martin Luther.  I don’t suppose it really matters whether that quote can be attributed to Calvin, but I shall leave this question open just in case someone can shed further light on the matter.


According to universalist Christians, is ill-will directed towards the devil virtuous? Having heard of the arguments put forth by Origen regarding universal salvation to an extent that includes even the devil, I have recently been considering the inverse, that is, the possibility of the Enemy’s permanent damnation.
For theologies given to that premise, does it ever follow that hatred and contempt and ill-will, prohibited by Jesus when  directed at your neighbors/enemies may be a virtue when directed at spiritual enemies such as demons and/or of Satan himself?

Jude 1:8-10 says:

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, for a person to harbor hatred, contempt, and ill-will towards another entity without an underlying basis of judgement.  Using the Scriptures as a guide and relying on the sensitivity of the Holy Spirit we are to judge between good and evil (particularly as we examine ourselves) and we are to hate evil and love good but we are never to pronounce judgement upon another entity.
The Scripture is clear:

Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly. - Deut. 32:35

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:19-21

The Lord God Almighty sees and remembers all and He reckons everything rightly without respect of person.  We may resist the devil, we should flee temptation, we should avoid people acting wickedly and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling but when we judge another entity we step into God's purview and this is what makes that sort of judgement blasphemous.
If Michael the Archangel is lauded in Scripture for refraining from such presumption we should stay well clear of it ourselves.


What is the meaning of the large statue of a pine cone in Vatican City? What is the meaning of this statue in Vatican City?

It is a sculpture created by Publius Cincius Salvius.  It was a former Roman fountain; Fontana Della Pigna.  It predates the Vatican owning the land.

Mathematics Magazine

  The colossal bronze pine cone was cast in the 1st or 2nd century by
  Publius Cincius Salvius who left his name on the base. This was way
  before the Catholic Church was given the property upon which Vatican
  City sits. There is much pre-Christian and non-Christian art in the
  Vatican and its museums

and from St. Peter's in the Vatican by William Tronzo pg 31

  Of equal obscure origin is the colossal pinecone (pigma), over 11 feet tall, which dominated the immediate approach to the basilica as the centerpiece of the fountain in the atrium.  Signed by its maker, the freedman Publius Cincius Salvius, the pigma has been dated on the basis of the letter forms to the first century CE.  It may have been made as a fountain.  As icons of fecundity and regeneration, pincones appeared from the time immemorial on the tip of the Bacchuc thysrus.  The Romans placed them in fountains, and monumental cones were also placed as finials on funerary buildings, with the same symbolic connotations.  In late antiquity, the most conspicuous use of the ancient regenerative symbolism was made by the cultists of Cybele, whose rites, as noted earlier were practiced on St. Peter's doorstep until the very end of the fourth century.  the pine tree signified Cybele's fickle lover,
  Attis, and the ritual felling of pine on the spring equinox, during the public festival called hilaria, baldly symbolized Attis's castration, thanks to which he was able to rise to a higher order of being.  Pine trees with prominent cones appear on most of the taurobolium altars that have survived, including those attributable to the Vatican Phrygianum.

So then, to Christians, I suppose the statue has little significance except that it's beautiful and old - really old.  To others, there may be a different meaning.  I believe it was Paul who said that as long as it doesn't make YOU do evil things, then there is nothing wrong with it.  I believe this was about eating unclean meat, but you get the idea


Did Jesus mean that heaven and earth would actually pass away in Matthew 24:25? In Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Jesus says:

  "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

How can heaven pass away, since it is the abode of God? (See, for example, 1 Kings 8:49; Psalm 123:1.)

Are there any other Scripture passages that can help to clarify this saying?

Heaven can mean several things:

The abode of God/angels/righteous
The firmament (sky)
State of utmost happiness

These are related concepts, and even in ancient languages, these meanings are conflated.
When heaven and hell are used together, #1 or #3 make the most sense.
When heaven and earth are used together, #2 probably makes the most sense.
So

The sky and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

or

The universe will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This isn't hypothetical; this event will happen, on the "day of the Lord",

the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up
2 Peter 3:10

Now, maybe God lives in a new place too -- I don't know any reason why that couldn't be true -- but the point isn't that God gets a new house, so much as it is that all creation will pass away, but not God's word.


What is the Swedenborgian (New Church) view of therapies that involve access to the subconscious mind? What is the Swedenborgian view of such therapies as hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming? Is the human subconscious off-limits due to the possibility of possession by evil forces, or can it be used to bring us closer to God through meditative states similar to hypnosis?

In general, Swedenborgians have been supportive of using the subconscious to get closer to God. There is some indication of Swedenborgians supporting hypnosis to that end.

When Franz Mesmer (1734–1815) developed the concept of  "animal magnetism" (generally called "hypnosis" now) there were Swedenborgians involved in the movement, seeing it as evidence of what Swedenborg wrote about.

The movements of "healing with the mind,"  "positive thinking" and the like also involved many Swedenborgians who saw them as focusing the mind on the higher levels.  One  Swedenborgian, Horatio Dresser (1866–1954) discounted movements that said everything could be healed in our minds—because Swedenborg was about us taking action into the real world, that exists beyond thoughts.

Today we have many Swedenborgians in mental health fields.   Stephen Larsen, a Swedenborgian psychologist, is very much in the school of "transpersonal" psychology or exploration of consciousness.  He wants to help us access the higher spiritual mind.

Wilson Van Dusen (1923–2005) was a Swedenborgian psychologist who worked with mental patients who had hallucinations.  He felt that some experienced what Swedenborg called spirits—good and bad.  He felt we were all vulnerable to spirits, but they reflect our own inner heaven and hell, and we can learn to focus on our own inner heavens to prevent influence from evil forces.

I am both a practicing social worker and a Swedenborgian minister.  I am very interested in the intersection of Swedenborg and mental health.  I know of no official Swedenborgian view on hypnosis NLP, or the subconscious.  However, I know of Swedenborgian therapists who utilize such techniques in therapy.  I would say that most do believe that evil spirit can be harassing, but that a way to prevent that is to find ways to connect with the Divine, including through techniques such as those you suggest.

Swedenborg did caution against "Ouija boards" or mediumship to try and contact spirits, as they can attract evil spirits and we need to keep our connection with the Divine.  I'd say modern Swedenborgians have a range of views on that, but would agree that our focus should be on connecting with the Divine—and that is the best protection from any harassment of evil spirits.

Heaven and hell are states within ourselves, and many Swedenborgians want to help us connect with our inner heaven.  Intention is important.  If one uses a Ouija board for the purpose of drawing evil spirits, that could make us vulnerable.   But things like meditation, hypnosis, and NLP, if used as a desire to understand ourselves better and to connect with the Divine more deeply are gifts to help connect with God's Divine inflow into all of us.

Rev. Dr. Wilma Wake
Minister of on-lineSwedenborgian Ministry


According to Jehovah Witnesses, in what way is Jesus human? From what I understand, Jehovah Witnesses believe in a form of Arianism that claims Jesus is “the son of God”, but he is inferior to “God the Father”, as he is usually understood as “God’s first creative act”. Then this spiritual entity was sent to earth, where he “became flesh” in the “incarnation”.

I’m not a Trinitarian myself, but it does include words like “human nature” and “hypostatic union” to describe how Jesus can be a “real human”, while “consubstantially” existing as something much different than a human.

According to Jehovah Witnesses, in what way is Jesus human? Was he a spiritual entity cloaked in human biology, or would they agree with the Trinitarian idea of a hypostatic union?

The Jehovah’s Witness religion teaches that there was a time when God was utterly alone and decided to create, as his first creation, a being known in the Bible both as the Word of God, and Michael the Archangel.  Then the by means ifWord / Michael, Jehovah created all the other angels plus this universe and planet earth and all life on it. He is said to have been subordinate to God in this vast project, only God never having been created. So, the first point to grasp in order to see what they believe about the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14) is that this created Son of God later became Son of Man, born to the virgin Mary as a perfect human being.
This is what their ‘Bible Teach’ book says about Jesus and Michael the Archangel (pages 218-219 in the Appendix) followed by a quote from their ‘Insight on the Scriptures’ Vol. 2 p394:

"The Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ,
before and after his life on earth… It is logical to conclude that
Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." “In his
prehumen existence Jesus was called ‘the Word.’ (Joh 1:1) He also had
the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his
resurrection (Ac 9:5), ‘the Word’ shows that he is identical with the
Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his
title (or name) ‘The Word of God’ (Rev 19:13) ties him in with his
prehuman existence.”

They claim that it was the spirit of Michael that entered into Jesus when he was born and that the body of Jesus was never resurrected. Instead, what came out of the tomb was a spirit creature (who transformed himself into human form to make the disciples think he was human although he was actually, in their belief system, a freshly created spirit). And it is Michael the Archangel who is coming back at Armageddon, they say.
This leaves us with the question as to who they say Jesus was, humanly speaking. Given all that pre-human angelic status, was he  half-human, fully human or more than human? The same ‘Insight’ book says, p56:

“Since actual conception took place, it appears that Jehovah God
caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile,
accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son
from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the
child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who
had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have
been an actual son of Mary… It is likely, therefore, that the child
born resembled its Jewish mother in certain physical characteristics…
it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the
conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum,
thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that
was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, God’s holy spirit at
the time guaranteed the success of God’s purpose… he was perfect in
physical form… Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as
angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually
a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother. (p 1002)”

This shows that they believe Jesus to have been fully human, and a perfect, physical man, not just appearing to be human (except at his resurrection when he had been re-created as a spirit who had the ability to appear to be physically human.) But was he more than human? Apparently not given what they say about denying he was an incarnation, and also claiming Jesus was an exact equivalent of the man Adam, prior to him sinning.  Again, quoting from that ‘Insight’ book (p 736):
“The related word antilytron appears in 1 Timothy 2:6. Parkhurst’s Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament says it means:,'a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a corresponding ransom. …So Aristotle uses the verb [antilytro’o] for redeeming life by life.” (London, 1845, p. 47) Thus Christ “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”
In their book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p 62, they claim that Jesus is the only man who ever lived that was equal to Adam as a perfect human son of God, and on the next page they have an illustration of a pair of balanced scales, Adam on one dish, and Jesus on the other. Given that Adam was never in heaven nor was an angel, the question remains as to how Jesus could correspond exactly to the man Adam (before he sinned) if Jesus somehow also (simultaneously) had the personality of the angel Michael right from conception. But that is up to the Jehovah’s Witnesses to deal with. I have simply quoted from their literature to offer an answer to, ‘in what ways was Jesus human’. It is very clear that they would never agree with the Trinitarian view of a hypostatic union.


Predestination and human knowledge Is there any denomination that claim to know it is possible for humans to know where a human is predestined to go after death?

Since the term "predestination" in your question specifically refers to God's choice of individuals for blessed eternal life or eternal damnation, after death, and with that understanding, I would like to make short comments:

First, is it knowable? The answer is a "binary" one: if you are "in" then you are "not
       out." And the best place to find the answer is the Scripture:

Jesus says,

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (Jn 10:27).
"And I have other sheep(you and I) that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice (v 16);
"When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (v4-5).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ....The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

So, it is knowable, and the knowing is between you and the Lord, a personal thing. And NO denomination or any human can claim to know for certain.

Paul says in Romans 8:16 -"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God."

So, it is knowable and knowing comes from your inner person, because the Holy Spirit abides in you as "Parakletos" (Πνεύματος), works within you. Can you NOT know when He is in you? (Paul use an analogy of being drunken with wine (Eph. 5:18.)

Scripture witness that, where ever He appears, i.e, Gen. 1:2, a new order and creation happens, and changes occurs. When believers in faith yield to Him, they will see  He "bear witness"- a slow but radical changes in your prayer, devotion, and attitude to others Because, your world view changes, so the value system, and purpose of life, etc.  You will become "seeking His kingdom and His righteousness first", etc. You will repent and confess of your sin that is the sure way a child can enjoy the peace and love of God in your life.
Mediate on the Parables- the Pearl merchant & the treasure hunter (Mt.13:44, 45-46).
"Jesus says, "You are the light" implies the darkness will flee from you and in your presence, and "you the salt" - people associate with you will see what difference you bring into their life.

Yes, it is knowable, NO one can claim to know for sure, but you and people around you will notice something going on with you,  and the **Lord knows YOU are His, that's all that matter. Blessings to you!

If you would like to read my comment on what is the role of our will,  the link:{here}


Did Job hold the priesthood according to LDS teaching? According to LDS teaching, did Job have the priesthood?

It would make sense for Job to be a high priest, since his life pointed towards Christ (which is a main duty of high priests), but I could find any sources talking about Job's priesthood.

Job lived during a time when a father was the priest for his family. Job 1:5 says,

  When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make
  arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would
  sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my
  children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s
  regular custom.

At the end of the book, in Job 42, it says:

  7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the
  Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have
  not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take
  seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a
  burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I
  will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly.
  You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So
  Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did
  what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

  10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his
  fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.

In this instance, Job is called upopn by God to act as a priest to accept sacrifices on behalf of his "friends". However, no mention is made of creating an enduring, hereditary priesthood as was the case with Aaron and Levi.

So I would say that Job was a priest.


Refusing to Baptize Illegitimate Infants Who started the withholding of baptism from children born out of wedlock in the Catholic Church? Who is responsible for this belief? Was a Church Father, Pope, Priest etc?

I now know that Pope Francis recently said that priests should never refuse baptism to anyone.

In the Catholic Church, there are indeed a very few cases in which priests are required to delay, not withhold, the Sacrament of Baptism; illegitimacy is not one of them.

Catholicism considers baptism necessary for salvation:

  The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [citing John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. [citing Matthew 28:19–20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. [citing Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1257)

It is therefore most important to Catholicism that all people be baptized—so important that the Church even recognizes extreme situations in which a lay person can baptize:

  In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

(Catechism, paragraph 1256)

  When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 861, section 2)

Baptism, however, does not ensure salvation, but only the outpouring of God's justifying grace on the baptizand. It is up to the individual, or in the case of a minor up to their parents or sponsors in baptism, to work so as to gain grace and merit before God; this is ultimately what allows them to gain salvation.

It is important, then, for the Church to make sure that a child who is offered for baptism has a reasonable chance of being raised Catholic. Thus, canon law requires the priest to delay baptism if he is sincerely doubtful on this point, while he discusses the issue with the parents:

  For an infant to be baptized licitly ... there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 868, section 1, paragraph 2)

The use of the word licitly in this instance indicates that if a priest violated this canon and baptized an infant in this case, the baptism would still be valid; the Church would still treat the infant as baptized and would believe that justifying grace had indeed been granted to them; but the priest might be in trouble for doing something that he really shouldn't have, and the infant's prospects of growth in faith and grace might be impaired.

All this is to point out that there may be times when the Church might not baptize an infant for whom baptism is requested, and to discuss pretty much the only time when this might be the case. (The only other possible occasions when baptism might not be conferred are when the parents don't assent to the baptism, or when the child has already been baptized in another Christian denomination.) Illegitimacy is not one of those times. That is, illegitimacy is not, and to the best of my understanding never has been, a bar to baptism in the Catholic Church.


According to the Catholic Church, does Jesus condemn those who don't believe? From the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ
...
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead

After reading this today, which appears somewhat to contrast the Creed:

And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not
condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the
world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something
to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last
day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me
commanded me what to say and speak.
John 12:47-49

Can someone reconcile this for me, perhaps with some official source from the Catholic Church?

People are not condemned, judged, or punished because they do not have faith in Jesus. They are condemned because of the evil acts they have committed during their life on Earth. They are saved from punishment by faith in Jesus, and (depending on your view on justification by faith alone or with works) by those works of righteousness that spring from that faith. Lack of faith leads to lack of forgiveness and justification, but that forgiveness and justification is only needed because of the sins already committed. As an analogy, the governor of a state by statute may pardon a criminal on death row. If he does not pardon the criminal, and the state has capital punishment, you could say that the governor condemned him to die, but it is really the crimes that the person committed that really condemned them.

Matthew 12:

  36 I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account
  for every careless word they speak. 37 For by your words you will
  be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

John 3:16

  “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son,
  so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal
  life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might
  condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18
  Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not
  believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name
  of the One and Only Son of God.

  19 “This, then, is the judgment: The light has come into the world,
  and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds
  were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light
  and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone
  who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be
  shown to be accomplished by God.”

John 7 shows the clearest connection between faith and forgiveness, where a sinful woman demonstrates her faith through her loving act of anointing Jesus:

  36 Then one of the Pharisees invited Him to eat with him. He entered
  the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And a woman in the
  town who was a sinner found out that Jesus was reclining at the table
  in the Pharisee’s house. She brought an alabaster jar of fragrant oil
  38 and stood behind Him at His feet, weeping, and began to wash His
  feet with her tears. She wiped His feet with the hair of her head,
  kissing them and anointing them with the fragrant oil.

  39 When the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself,
  “This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman
  this is who is touching Him—she’s a sinner!”

  40 Jesus replied to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

  “Teacher,” he said, “say it.”

  41 “A creditor had two debtors. One owed 500 denarii, and the other
  50. 42 Since they could not pay it back, he graciously forgave them both. So, which of them will love him more?”

  43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one he forgave more.”

  “You have judged correctly,” He told him. 44 Turning to the woman, He
  said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave
  Me no water for My feet, but she, with her tears, has washed My feet
  and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but she hasn’t
  stopped kissing My feet since I came in. 46 You didn’t anoint My head
  with olive oil, but she has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47
  Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why[n]
  she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48
  Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

  49 Those who were at the table with Him began to say among themselves,
  “Who is this man who even forgives sins?”

  50 And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”


Jesus' power going out What should one understand from  the NT verse  which  says :... Jesus realised that power had gone out from Him" (Mark 5:30)? Is it a figurative narration ? Or, is it a  casualty of translation ?

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?” (RSV)

The word rendered as "power" is δύναμις (dynamis).  Luke (8:46) recounts a slightly different version, but using the same Greek word:

  Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.”

Although we think of "power" as some kind of energy or force, the word dynamis has a wider scope.  It translated on many occasions as "mighty works" in the King James, RSV, and other versions:

Matthew 7:22 (RSV)

  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

Mark 6:2

  And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!

Luke 10:13

  “Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Beth-saida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

The power imparted to the woman in Mark 5:25ff is not "transferred" to her form some store of power that Jesus had, perhaps dispersed in some kind of quanta.  It is imparted without depleting anything from the source.  One Byzantine commentary drew a parallel with how "teaching" is imparted:

  Power goes out from Christ, not travelling from one location to another, but rather imparted to others while remaining in Christ undiminished.  It is the same with teachings, which remain with those who teach, and yet are imparted to those who learn.*

*  Theophylact of Ohrid (ca 1055-1107), Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark (tr. from the Greek, Chrysostom Press, 1993), p.46.


Does the verse in Song of Solomon 5:16 contain the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad? I have met Muslims and interacted with them directly and indirectly about their brief that the Islamic prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. One such claim is centred on the Song of Solomon 5:16. The following is how Muslims usually reason in support of their view:
In Song of Solomon 5:16 the original text reads: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם. The original Hebrew word in the verse mentioning the name Muhammad is “מחמד”. [These letters in English are MHMD and in Arabic are محمد (Muhammad)].
But, does the above understanding base on exegesis or eisegesis?

Q - Does the verse in Song of Solomon 5:16 contain the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad?
A – No, it does not.  In Song of Solomon 5:16, the maiden says of her lover, "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem." The word translated as "lovely" is the Hebrew word ‘machamadim’. It is the plural of ‘machamad’, which means “lovely, cute, or desirable.”  Although it is the root word of Muhammad, it does not follow that the verse refers to Muhammad, especially since the word used is a plural adjective, not the name of a person.
Q – Is the Muslim understanding of Song of Solomon 5:16 based on exegesis or eisegeis?

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s ideas.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

A – It is based on eisegesis.  One reason is that the Muslim interpretation fails to adhere to the rules of grammar.  It fails the literal principle because it tries to spiritualize or allegorize words that literally mean “lovely, cute, or desirable.”  It also fails the historical principle because it interprets Hebrew Scripture according to a modern culture/religion rather than placing scripture in its historical context.  Finally, the Muslim interpretation of this Bible verse fails the “Synthesis Principle” of good exegesis:

The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

Biblical exegesis does not support the Muslim interpretation of Song of Solomon 5:16.


What is meant by the punishment for Satan in Genesis 3? And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
  thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
  upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
  thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
  between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
  shalt bruise his heel.  (Genesis 3:14-15 KJV)

Is that punishment (upon thy belly shalt thou go) directed to the animal - "the serpent" - only, or does it have some symbolic meaning?

I think is important to look at this as a whole, not just "upon thy belly shall thou go". This is symbolic, as a lot is in the Holy Writ. We have the advantage over the devil, and if we desire, we can resist him, and he will flee from us.  He has no more power then we give him.

This is personal interpretation: If something/one is crawling, and I am walking, I immediately have a vantage point and power over that individual.  Satan was not given a body because of his rebellion, so he cannot literally crawl upon his belly.


The Greatest Commandment - Loving God with all our 1) heart, 2) soul, and 3) strength Jesus highlights Deuteronomy 6:5 as the greatest commandment in the law.  This commandment highlights three aspects of loving God, specifically with our hearts, our souls, and our strengths.

  Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
  with all your strength.  Deuteronomy 6:5 NIV

What is distinct about each of these?  Specifically, what does it look like to love God with all our hearts?  What does it mean to love God with all our souls?  What does it mean to love God with all our strengths?

Matthew 22:37-38 (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first
and greatest commandment.

This is the first and greatest commandment. I think that it's pretty ironic that nobody can answer what this means, considering the biggest forgivable sin is probably breaking the first and most important commandment.

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

The Bible tells us that Love for God is obedience to Him.
With all your heart

Romans 2:15 (NIV)
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their
hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The commandments and laws of God are no longer obeyed by one nation, but instead these things are written on the individual believers hearts. So that each believer may be governed by the spirit and not by the flesh.
To love God with all of your heart is to allow all of His laws to govern you.

Matthew 5:28 (NIV)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.

With all of your mind

Romans 8:6 (NIV)
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the
Spirit is life and peace.

We are also told that we need to think about good things and not evil things. We are to focus our entire mind on the things that please God. Not planning evil against a brother or doing things in private.
With all of your Strength

1 John 3:18 (NIV)
Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions
and in truth.

God tells us that we need not just SAY that we are Christian, but actually BE Christian. The parable of the two farmers sons is the perfect example of this. Jesus gives two examples of Children that were told to go work in the field. On said ok but didn't go. The other said no, but then eventually went.
Jesus asks the people, Who actually obeyed? The one that DID or the one that DIDN'T? It's an obvious answer, the son that DID is the son that DID.
To love God with all of your strength is to DO as He has asked you to do.


What Biblical basis do "separation traditions" have to support their beliefs? There are a variety of Christian traditions that involve some level of separation from the world - monasticism, the Mennonites, Amish, Shakers, Quakers, etc.

We are told in the New Testament to be "separate from the world" and to be "unstained by the world".

We are also told to "go and make disciples".

I know that the Bible does not contradict itself.

How do the "separation traditions" (for lack of a better phrase) support their [sometimes full] separation from the world with the other (sometimes apparently contradictory) commands given to Christ's followers?

It comes from the idea of sanctification.  Sanctification is from the Latin sanctificio, which means "set apart".

This concept is also reflected in the Bible.

  John 17:16-17 (NIV)
  They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

These groups take this (along with other verses) as an indication that they should separate themselves from the world.

One other verses supports this concept:

  Romans 12:2
  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will

  John 15:19
  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.


What are common criticisms against using the KJV? I know that many people and churches prefer using translations other than the KJV. Why? What are the common criticisms against it?

The usual criticism is readability.  The KJV was originally translated in the 1600's, and even though it's been updated several times since then, there are still words that have different meanings now than they did in the English of the time.  The literary style is clearly less modern than more recent translations.

Another criticism is based on the translation sources.  The New Testament portion of the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which has been subject to some criticism.  This has resulted in some minor textual differences that can be traced back to the different source manuscripts.

I hesitate to answer more completely because the choice of a Bible version is personal, and I want to avoid stating that any version/translation is superior to others.  There are those that feel very strongly about the superiority of their own version (KJV-only and those strongly opposed.)  The textual differences mentioned above tend to fuel such arguments, which in my opinion, tend to be counter-productive.

Another criticism is the distinction between a translation of the original texts, and a paraphrase.  The various  Bible translations fall somewhere on a scale between word by word equivolence and thought for thought equivalence or paraphrase.  The KJV is closer to the word-for-word end than many modern counterparts.

The KJV-only groups tend to prefer a direct translation of the original because it is less subject to be influenced by the views of the translator. They argue that an interpreted version is suspect, because the result is influenced by the translator's understanding of the meaning of the text.  On the other side, the argument goes that the "paraphrase" versions are written so that the meaning is clearly understood, and it's therefore "easier to understand" than the "archaic" KJV.