How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism? I know psalms and other Biblical songs are often sung as hymns, read and cited, but I wonder to which extent is this understood as a prayer by Protestants.

To be more concrete, is the use of psalms mentioned in Ephesians 5:19 understood as prayer, "strange prayer", "something related to prayer" or "something completely different"?

Ephesians 5:18b-20:

  Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with
  psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from
  your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for
  everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This answer has awakened my old suspition that there is some hidden but grave terminological incompatibility between Catholic and Protestant understanding of prescribed prayer and praising God's name by Psalms and by words of Bible in general. For Catholics, singing/reciting psalms and other Biblic songs with intent to praise God is definitely understood as a prayer, in fact it's a base of Liturgy of Hours. The answer for the question Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours? seems to imply different approach.
That's why I ask this question.

This may not be completely answerable in a way that applies to all Protestants, but I'm going to put forth an answer that I believe will apply to a large swath of protestant belief.

The generally accepted Protestant understanding of what prayer is can be found at http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-prayer-tips-how-to-talk-to-god/

  Prayer is simply having a conversation with God. There are many
  different thoughts on what you should and shouldn’t say when you pray.
  There is merit to many of these ideas. But try to make your prayer
  life a simple conversation with your Heavenly Father.

In that sense, prayer is not simply reciting words by memory.  That's not a conversation.  Prayer is not repeating words that others have said.  There are many types of prayer recognized by Protestants:

Prayers of thanks
Prayers of repentance
Prayers of confession and asking for forgiveness
Petitions (asking God for something)
Prayers of praise.

In this sense, we recognize that the Psalms and other recorded prayers in the Bible were prayers of the psalmists, or of those that are recorded as speaking them.  They are to us a pattern to emulate rather than something to simply be memorized and repeated.

Normally I wouldn't use personal items as part of an answer, but this does illustrate the point, so please forgive me if this strays into the "not a well supported answer territory"...

That said, when talking to people about the definition of repentance, and praying for salvation, in many protestant Churches, we condone a form of recited prayer - we call it the sinner's prayer, and scores of well-meaning Christians when witnessing simply ask the potential convert to repeat a prayer after them, something like "Oh, Lord, I'm a sinner.  I realize I'm lost and can't save myself.  Please forgive me, come into my heart, and save me", and we call that a prayer.

In a sense, that sinner's prayer is no more a prayer than simply repeating a psalm, and I, personally, like to point instead to psalm 51, and say something like, "Look a this.  this is the prayer of someone who knows they're lost, and is truly repentant. Look at how David is begging to be cleansed..." and use it as a pattern for true prayer of repentance.

end of delving into the personal belief portion of the answer

The point of the above journey into not constructive territory is that Protestants, to answer your question, view such prayers as examples - as patterns, but would not see simply rote repetition of the prayers as prayer in and of itself.  We would see mere repetition of established prayers as meaningless. To us, it misses the point of a personal relationship with God, because repeating words written by others isn't having a conversation with Him.

Perhaps this article sums it up better, but still says basically the same thing:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_protestants_pray

  How do protestants pray?

  Answer:

  Protestants may pray in silence , in groups or outloud. However , they
  do not like using formula prayers , and they do not pray to Mary or to
  saints.


Is modern technology part of the Divine Intention? These days we have very advanced technologies which our forefathers could not have think of. Are the discoveries and inventions part of the Divine Plan or Intention?

  Genesis 1:28 (NIV) God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
  increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
  in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature
  that moves on the ground.”

This verse tells us some of the Intentions of God. But, did God intend them to be intelligent, creative,innovative,exploring, discovering and inventive?

Did God give scientific knowledge to Adam and Eve? Did God intend to give them only spiritual wisdom?

Is there any denomination that believe that God did not intend it this way? And is there any that say the otherwise?

I know this is closed without likelihood to reopen but I forgot out this most revealing verse on the topic:

  Proverbs 25:2 NIV
  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
  to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

I cannot really answer this without it being mostly opinion, but here it goes anyway.

I would say that maybe the Amish think technology is not God's intention. I don't think we will get many Amish on this site, however.

I don't see how anyone who takes the Bible can say anything is not God's intention. There are just too many verses indicating and even straight up saying that nothing happens without God knowing about it and either letting it happen or intervening. So I would say that if there is a Christian sect that actually preaches this, they are likely small and do not fully take the Bible.

I have this picture of those old crotchety men complaining about those darn kids today and their fandanggeled e-lec-tronics. Then they go on to say that God never intended us to do this and that with such and such technology. I have to say that he just must be speaking out of ignorance.

I think it is clear that God very much intends for us to understand His creation and that is all supported in the Creation story in Genesis. The first is that man is made to be like God, who is a creator, and we are charged with ruling over (caring for) the earth and all that is in it.

  So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.
  God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Gen 1:27 NIV

Here it says that man is made in God's image then immediately blesses man and charges him with the care of the entire Earth. Holy Cow! Do you see what just happened here? God gave man some of His own spectacular abilities then gave him all of creation. That sounds like a licence to do. A licence to do like God and create, and build and 'see that it is good'. This sounds to me that no only does the Bible want us to be 'scientists' (which comes from the Latin word for knowledge), and not only encouraged it, but He charged us with it. We are to rule over all of creation as He rules over us. That means we are to know His creation as he knows us, and also care for it and cherish it, and add to it when we can so that 'it is good'.

Later God brings every animal to Adam to name.

  Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Gen 2:19

This has a lot going on when you include what is before and after, but what is often missed is that naming something has often been the symbol of your authority over it. This is saying that creation is the same a belonging to us as it does to God because He gave it to us. This also shows that God forced Adam to know His creation before it was even complete; before Eve was made. God very clearly wants us to explore and know His creation.

Now as for knowledge that God meant for us to have, I think actually the knowledge is in question is wisdom, at least in full. It was the wisdom gained from eating of the Tree of Knowledge that brought about the fall. The fall did not come because Adam made a scientific discovery. The fall did not come because Adam learned something magnificent about Creation and then applied it in some way. No. The fall came because Adam and even gained spiritual knowledge, or wisdom; they gained knowing what was good and evil. Without this knowledge they could only do good. They were blameless. So if they could only do good then any scientific thing they might have done would also only be good. They would be doing their holy charge: Ruling over the Earth.

Now about technology today. All of that only exists because someone used their God given ability to create like He does. Someone learned something magnificent about Creation, applied it to something specific, then created something good. At least we hope it is good. I am not the type to condemn something simply because it exists, but I think it is clear that knowledge and scientific discovery can lead to nasty inventions. Nuclear weapons are the first that come to mind. The point is that we can create and are meant to do so, and we only have the ability to create evil because of the spiritual wisdom that the Tree of Knowledge gave us. So you see that this spiritual knowledge combined with our ability to create can make us pretty nasty, but if we can be true to God we can also create some awesome things that add to Creation's goodness instead of take away.

So in summary, we were made to be creative like God. For us to be creative like God we must first be intelligent, innovative, exploring, and inventive. Science is the Christian thing to do. Embracing discovery and inventions that glorify God and add to Creation's goodness is the Christian thing to do.


According to the Catholic Church, does purgatory have a symbol? I haven't found it on the internet. Are there any symbols for purgatory, or related to purgatory?

No, there is no definite symbol for purgatory. There is nothing that when you look at it, you will think "that means purgatory".

The "fish" IXOYE is one of the many symbols of Jesus, as is the "Chi Rho" symbol: ☧, ⳩

The cross is a symbol of Christianity: ✝

But there is nothing of the sort for purgatory. But there is also no definite Christian symbol for hell, or for heaven. Sometimes, cleansing "Holy Fire" is used in art in conjunction with purgatory, but this is not exactly a symbol in the relevant sense. Keep in mind also that, to take one prominent example, it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church that purgatory is a place: it might only be a process of cleansing. For that reason, a symbol might be even harder to come by.


Was Jesus resurrected after or {within} three days of his death? Was Jesus resurrected after complete 3 days, or he resurrected in the third day?. I mean if he had been resurrected in the third day, this means that he had spent less than 72 hours before his resurrection.

As Lucian pointed out, people of the time would use inclusive counting. This means:

Jesus died and was buried before sundown. This is considered the first day.
The next day began at the following sundown. This is the second day. During that entire day Jesus was in the tomb.
The day after that began at the next sundown. This is the third day. On the morning of that day, i.e. the one after the second sundown following his death, Jesus is raised from the dead and encounters his followers at the tomb.

Thus Jesus is raised on the third day. It is less than 72 hours (indeed less than 48 hours) between his death and resurrection.


How to interpret the ban of unions between believers and non-believers? Having lately studied the bible from Second Epistle to the Corinthians I have pondered whether or not unions between nonbelievers and those in faith are really fully and undisputedly condemned by the scripture. There are numerous passages where they are at least discouraged if not bluntly denied as sin, but throughout the word there is the message of love, sharing and caring that seems to conflict this by limiting e.g. marriage to those who share faith. I'd like to hear your ideas especially regarding the passage on  2. Cor.6:14-16?

My question, hence, is: is the union (by union I suppose the reference is to marriage but I'm also interested if there is something to be said about cohabitation prior to marriage that is quite common these days) of a believer and a non-believer condemned without exemptions and in case of such marriage, is the one in faith committing continuous sin as long as the marriage lasts, and will that turn used against him/her in the final judgment?

Sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited by the Bible. The Bible calls this fornication if you are not married or adultery if you are married but commit it with another person. 1 Corinthians 5 talks about this. It is for our own good that God prohibits this as this cleaves us unto the person that we commit this sin with.

The Bible also tells us not to associate with people like this as friends, as they might influence us. It doesn't tell us to ignore them or hate them, but to love them and pray for them. But do not invite them into your home as they might lead you or your family astray, and especially do not seek a lasting relationship with them (marriage) as this is being unequally yoked.

  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
  fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
  hath light with darkness?

  2 Corinthians 6:14

EDIT: I'll add a few references to not invite them into you home.

  I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral
  people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral
  people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or
  idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But
  now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a
  brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
  reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a
  person.

  1 Corinthians 5:9

It is important to know that this speaks of so-called Christians that are living in open sin.

  But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even
  be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no
  filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place,
  but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this,
  that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous
  (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ
  and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
  these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7
  Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were
  darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
  9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and
  true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no
  part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

  Ephesians 5:3-11

The example of Lot's family living among the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah should also be noted. Abraham decided to stay in the wilderness while Lot went for the much more attractive valley close to the cities. It was a disaster, as it ruined his home. His family was destroyed. Only He and his two daughters were saved, but it was too late. His daughters were already corrupted with the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Because of this, they committed this terrible and vile act of giving their father fermented wine and committing the terrible sin of fornication and incest.


Evidence towards Christianity I have been a Christian for my entire life.  Lately, I have been in a low spot in faith, and have had some skepticism towards a few things in the bible.  I do have faith in the bible, but I would like to see some extra-biblical historical, and or scientific evidence of things things that are accounted for in the bible.

Consider doing a little googling, such as I did.  In a couple minutes I came up with the following:

http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html  (Copyright © 1994 by The Issachar Institute.)

From http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm#_edn2  From J.P. Moreland, "The Historicity of the New Testament", footnote number 2:  "[2] For a summary of archaeology and the New Testament, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Archaeology and the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 645-69. Two of the best summaries of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus are Gary R. Habermas Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), E F Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)."  Moreland's complete article is well worth reading!

http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/934/Historicity_of_Bible.pdf  I can't vouch for this web site (nor can I vouch for the previous two), but it does seem to take a novel approach to a controversial issue!

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, of the Christian Research Institute has some interesting things to say.  See http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/#christian-books-1

See Wayne Jackson's "The Historicity of Jesus Christ" at https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/26-historicity-of-jesus-christ-the

In short, there is a wealth of information out there that may serve to buttress your faith and give you the encouragement you need at this time.  I wish you well.  Don


Why was there a 'governor' at the Wedding in Cana? The miracle of the Wedding at Cana is described in John 2.

There are specific references to a 'governor'/'ruler' of the feast in John 2:7-10.

What role did a 'governor' at a wedding perform at this time?

What historical records exist in terms of source references for this?

The Bible Gateway website has several commentaries, but only one (Matthew Henry's) notes:

  Some think that this governor of the feast was only the chief guest,
  that sat at the upper end of the table; but, if so, surely our Lord
  Jesus should have had that place, for he was, upon all accounts, the
  principal guest; but it seems another had the uppermost room, probably
  one that loved it (Matt. 23:6), and chose it, Luke 14:7. And Christ,
  according to his own rule, sat down in the lowest room; but, though he
  was not treated as the Master of the feast, he kindly approved himself
  a friend to the feast, and, if not its founder, yet its best
  benefactor. Others think that this governor was the inspector and
  monitor of the feast: the same with Plutarch’s symposiarcha, whose
  office it was to see that each had enough, and none did exceed, and
  that there were no indecencies or disorders. Note, Feasts have need of
  governors, because too many, when they are at feasts, have not the
  government of themselves. Some think that this governor was the
  chaplain, some priest or Levite that craved a blessing and gave
  thanks, and Christ would have the cup brought to him, that he might
  bless it, and bless God for it; for the extraordinary tokens of
  Christ’s presence and power were not to supersede, or jostle out, the
  ordinary rules and methods of piety and devotion.

As I understand it, a symposiarch was a 'toastmaster' or 'master of ceremonies' in the Greek classical tradition - but this was a Jewish wedding.

None of the dictionaries or commentaries I've found have been able to cite sources (apart from the reference to Plutarch) - can anyone point me to more rigorous commentaries or explanations, please?

The Apocrypha will help on this issue. Sirach, which is believed to have had a Hebrew original (e.g. DSS) and which is quoted several times in Hebrew in the Talmud, has a chapter concerning being the master of a feast:

Sirach 32:1-9 (NRSV)

  If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself;
      be among them as one of their number.
  Take care of them first and then sit down;
  2     when you have fulfilled all your duties, take your place,
  so that you may be merry along with them
      and receive a wreath for your excellent leadership.

  3 Speak, you who are older, for it is your right,
      but with accurate knowledge, and do not interrupt the music.
  4 Where there is entertainment, do not pour out talk;
      do not display your cleverness at the wrong time.

  ...
  9 Among the great do not act as their equal;
      and when another is speaking, do not babble.

Greek of the first verse of Sirach 32 (from ellopos):

  ῾Ηγούμενόν σε κατέστησαν; μὴ ἐπαίρου· γίνου ἐν αὐτοῖς ὡς εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, φρόντισον αὐτῶν καὶ οὕτω κάθισον.

The word just refers to a governor and is not specific to ruling feasts. NRSV obviously added the words "of the feast" from a consideration of the context. This is confirmed by looking at the KJV, which has "If thou be made the master of a feast, lift not thyself up..." (italics theirs)

Versus the Greek of John 2:9 (using the Greek Orthodox Patriarchal Text):

  ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον—καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν· οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ—φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος


If God could make Mary sinless, why not anybody else? In this thread one of the answers states that Catholic tradition has Mary as sinless from conception (if I read it correctly). I don't want to sound flippant here but this begs the question: if God could do it for Mary with no problem, why not do it for everybody? I mean, why even bother with the crucifixion at all? If you think about it, He could have done the same thing with all of Adam's first generation and poof! Problem solved. Why go through all the trouble?

If God could make Mary sinless, why not anybody else?

God being omnipotent, could have created the world differently and made it that we were all "immaculate conceptions", but he chose not too. We must respect his decisions.

First of all there are only two people the Catholic Church recognizes as being preserve from original sin: Jesus and Mary. However there are two other people who were created prior to the fall and were thus at one time in a state of grace (sinless) and in union with God: Adam and Eve.

Your question now begs another. If mankind were to have been preserved from original sin, would that mean that we would have been completely sinless until we died?

Part of Mary's graces in receiving the gift of the Immaculate Conception is that she cooperated with the supernatural graces given her in order to avoid sin also. Mary too, just like us was tempted to sin. Unlike us, she conquered the temptation she experienced in this world and remained sinless.

One can not stress enough the fact that the Virgin Mary like us had to diligently work out her own salvation, even though she received special graces because she was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Christ.

Although preserved from Original Sin, Mary still was a human being like the rest of us. But, she was given preventative redemption, meaning that the grace she was given at her conception was in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

  What is true is that her very personal sinlessness gave her a deep sense of what sin and evil are. It only caused her moments of suffering to be intense to a point we cannot fully grasp.

  If you want to ask what sin is, don’t ask an evil person. The one who knows sin is the one who is in a deep and loving relationship with God, and one who suffers from the evil of others.

  The idea that Mary was never tempted is trumped by the simple fact that Satan tempted Jesus himself. For Satan, Mary would have been a real prize. So understanding Mary’s own humanity, as perfect as it is, consider what would be one of the most painful experiences she or anyone could have? - The Loneliness of Mary of Nazareth.

So in the end, God could have created us all sinless at birth , But would we have all preserved our sinlessness? Who knows what form of temptations Satan would have mustarded up against us then?

But for myself, the Exsultet say it all:

  O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
   quod Christi morte delétum est!

  O felix culpa,
   quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

  O truly necessary sin of Adam,
   destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

  O happy fault
   that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!


Why did Jezebel curse herself? "And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, also how he had executed all the prophets with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.” And when he saw that, he arose and ran for his life, and went to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there."-1 Kings 19:1-3

It's understandable how Jezebel got furious after realising that Elijah killed all her best prophets but if she was supposedly so angry about it, why did she decide to curse herself? Why not be explicit and tell Elijah that he should be killed without all of the fancy language? She certainly didn't put on this act when she decided to coldly organise Naboth's execution. Quite counterproductive for an ambitious queen hellbent on vengeance and bloodshed.

Was Jezebel trying to get into Elijah's mind, trying to disturbingly suggest that maybe her god(s) truly existed? Or was it just simply her trying to sound self-righteously pious or conversely, being extremely nihilistic? Imagine the immense foolery Elijah had to put up with.

Ahab was a very wicked king but the source of his wickedness does not appear, to me, to be within himself :

  But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. I Kings 21:25 KJV.

Yet, even Ahab humbled himself, :

  And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.

Jezebel was out of control. And the final act of hers, sealed her end - the matter of Naboth's vineyard. Writing letters in Ahab's name, she engineered Naboth's decease through the worst form of slander, see I Kings 21.

Ahab merely went into a sulk when Naboth refused to yield his rightful inheritance, I Kings 21:4, it was Jezebel who actively did the wicked deeds that brought about Naboth's death.

In the text quoted by the OP, Jezebel swore an oath to her own gods, and swore to kill - or to bring about the death of - the prophet of the Lord, Elijah. This indicates a depth of depravity which is wilful, deliberate, malicious and indicates that she is completely given up to a demonic spirit, through the means of idolatrous worship.

Paul warns the Corinthians of the fact that demonic spirits are associated with the worship of idols in I Corinthians 10:20 :

  But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. KJV

Not so Ahab. He was weak and his spirit was stirred up by his wife, rather than being a strong source from within his own self.

I doubt Jezebel was attempting to play psychological tricks with Elijah's mind. I think she was moved, within herself, by a spirit which was very powerful, completely amoral and utterly opposed to the Lord God of Israel . . .

. . . and she was willingly in a spiritual union with that demonic force.


What are the classics/giants of Biblical Theology? Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

Based on Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics.

Who are the giants in Biblical Theology?

What are the classics / great works in Biblical Theology?

Related question on Systematic Theology (Split into multiple questions as requested.)

This may seem rude but as Biblical Theology as a label is a recent invention and those who willfully take that label are unknown compared to the greats of Christian history, there are none.

There are just a few people within limited circles that feel Biblical Theology is the new way to better explain theology. They include such names as Geerhardus Vos who in some ways is the father of Biblical Theology. Graeme Goldsworthy who is possibly the modern spokesperson of the philosophy. Other names I have seen but have never read are Herman Ridderbos, Meredith and Vaughan Roberts.

From what I can tell this view is more popular among evangelical anglicans and specifically and proactively supported by Moore College, an evangelical anglican college in Australia.

Having said this I think Moore college is pretty good, compared to most. Also there is a lot about the term that carries very good and refined theological ideas. Its only weakness (in my view) is how it tries to argue that we should not really use the word 'new' in the New Testament and that the Laws of Moses were 'gracious'.  That said the good aspects of showing the 'gradual development and progressive and harmonious revelation' of Gods word are possibly better understood by reading Jonathan Edwards History of Redemption, or Alfred Edersheim's
The Bible History, Old Testament, both which show the natural progression of revelation with anointed skill. Although they predate the philosophy of Biblical Theology, to put this philosophy under the best possible terms we could say they are the unrecognized 'greats' of what Biblical theology claims as its modern and  noble aims.


What is the Biblical basis against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace? The question of what the Biblical basis is in favor of Irresistible Grace has been asked here.  However, the question regarding the Biblical argument against it does not seem to have been addressed yet.  So, that's the question.

What is the Biblical basis or argument against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace--that is, the doctrine that God's grace to the elect prior to their conversion is irresistible.  The elect person can't help but be drawn into salvation and a relationship with God.

The argument against irresistable grace is centered in the Biblical teachings that, on the one hand, God desires everyone to be saved and has made his grace available to all people.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all.

On the other hand, we are asked to make a choice and salvation is said to be contingent on our response.

Joshua 24:15
Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
Ezekiel 18:21-22
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live.
John 1:12
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.
Romans 10:9
[I}f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The flip side of this coin is that if we don't respond or don't follow through, we won't be saved.

Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 24:12-13
And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
1 Corinthians 9:26-27
I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.

If we can "be disqualified" or fail to "endure to the end", it stands to reason that God's grace can be resisted.
Summary
If:

God wants everyone to be saved, and
He has made his grace available to everyone, and
He asks us to respond to his grace, and
He promises salvation to those who respond but not to those who fail to respond or fail to follow through, then

it's hard to make the case that God's grace is irresistible.


Is a belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three persons, but one, Modalism? If I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, but not as three persons but as one, do I believe in Modalism?

Options to consider
In the history of conceptions regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit there have been names commonly assigned to some of them.  Over time, those named conceptions have developed a measure of stability and precision as shown in the Wikipedia entries dedicated to them.
A very good survey of non-Trinitarian conceptions can be found in the Wikipedia entry Nontrinitarianism.  Narrowing the field of options to those conceiving God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one person gives us a few options:

Monarchianism emphasizes God the Father as one, and this view has two types:

Modalistic monarchianism (or simply, Modalism), 'considers God to be one while appearing and working through the different "modes" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.'  This is the view of Oneness Pentecostalism.
Dynamic monarchianism (aka Adoptionism) conceives that God the Father "adopted" Jesus to be God at either baptism, resurrection, or ascension, and that Jesus remained divine since then.  In this view, Jesus is not co-eternal with the Father.  Viewed another way, Adoptionism is a kind of Subordinationism where Jesus has less status than the Father.  This is the view of the now extinct Ebionites and a few minor groups throughout history.

Unitarianism differs from Modalism that Unitarians teach that Jesus is not God, but an inspired man and a great teacher.  (see GotQuestions entry).  This is the view of the Unitarian churches, whose theology is described here.

Sabellianism is similar to Modalism in its conception.  Encyclopaedia Britannica characterizes it as a "more developed and less naive form of Modalistic Monarchianism".  The different name is to identify the origin of the teaching as coming from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century, and as an Eastern Church heresy.  New World Encyclopedia has a good treatment on it.

Emanuel Swedenborg's view of the Trinity, expounded in Lee Woofenden's article Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?.  See also Mr. Woofenden's answer contrasting this view with modalism.

What you believe
Since you specify that 1) all three are God and 2) all three is one person, then what you believe can either be Modalistic monarchianism or Sabellianism or Swedenborg's view unless I failed to name other conceptions that can fit your search criteria.
Further study
One very good book about the historical development of the doctrine of Trinity, various ways of conceptualizing the Trinity, as well as practical consequences to other doctrines is The Trinity - A Guide for the Perplexed by an Anglican priest, Paul M. Collins, reviewed here.  Here's a relevant quote from Chapter 2 (Moments of Interpretation) in a section "A pre-Nicene ecology of language":

Monarchianism can be said to have been used to safeguard the unity of God. Dynamic or adoptionist Monarchianism, attributed to Paul of Samosata, understood that the power (dynamis) of God had descended on Jesus, inspired him and given him divine honour. Some would argue that such an understanding can be read out of the Apostles’ Creed. There were other forms of Monarchianism: such as modalism, patripassianism and Sabellianism, in which the three names used in relation to the Godhead: Father, Son and Spirit represented one hypostasis or persona, which was manifest in a succession of modes. There was no understanding of any real distinction within
the divine being. These understandings of the divine led to the asking of crucial questions about how God in se was related to the revelation and redemption given. It is out of these concerns and the perceived threats of misunderstanding or heresy that the imperatives towards definition emerge.


Has Madonna been excommunicated by the Catholic Church? The singer Madonna Louise Ciccone has stated on in various interviews that she's been excommunicated by the Catholic Church multiple times.

The best-selling female recording artist then revealed that she had
been excommunicated from the church three times. Corden, in disbelief,
questioned whether or not she was serious but she assured him that it
was true.
"The Vatican has excommunicated me," she said before the two of them
started belting out her hit song, "Papa Dont Preach" off of her third
studio album released in 1986, True Blue.
Madonna Talks Being Excommunicated by Church, Desire to Be Nun on James Corden's 'Carpool Karaoke'

and

“I’ve been excommunicated from the Catholic Church three times,”
Madonna joked to the crowd in Philadelphia. “It shows the Vatican
cares – deeply.”
Watch Madonna Dedicate a Song to the 'Popey-Wopey' (A.K.A. Pope Francis)

Has she formally been excommunicated on multiple occasions (or if not, why does she think she has)?

There are a few actions which, by canon law, cause a lay person to be excommunicated in and of themselves:

public declaration (usually repeatedly and by a prominent figure) that one rejects the Church. Technically this is known as apostasy. (Canon 1364)
public rejection of the authority of the pope over the Church, known as schism. (Canon 1364)
public rejection of some teaching which the Church requires to be believed, after being corrected by one's pastor or bishop, or by the pope. This is called heresy. (Canon 1364)
assaulting the pope or another bishop (canon 1370)
trying to consecrate the Eucharist (canon 1378)
falsely accusing a priest of trying to absolve someone he's had an affair with (canon 1390)
procuring (that is, arranging for, or possibly conducting) an abortion (canon 1398)

None of these appear to have applied to Madonna (although perhaps one of the first three might).
There are a number of other possible actions for which canon law prescribes that the offender is to be "punished with a just penalty". This just penalty can include excommunication. Of all of these possible actions, the only one I can think of that might apply is

A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults [against] or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1369

It is possible that an official of the Catholic Church felt that some of Madonna's statements about the Church fit into this category. Wikipedia, for example, states "The ... music video [for Madonna's song "Like a Prayer"] featured many Catholic symbols such as stigmata and cross burning, and a dream of making love to a saint, leading the Vatican to condemn the video."
Typically an excommunication comes from one's ordinary: the head of the diocese in which Madonna lives. I'm not precisely sure of the timeline of Madonna's moves, but this would probably have been Terence Cardinal Cooke, archbishop of New York 1968–1983; Joseph Cardinal O'Connor, archbishop of New York 1984–2000; Roger Cardinal Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles 1985–2011; or possibly Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente, archbishop of the Latin Patriarchate of Lisbon since 2013. It would be very rare indeed for the Vatican to excommunicate someone.
I can't find any reference to Madonna's excommunications that doesn't come from her, and there are a few statements of canon law that indicate it is probably not the case.
Once a person is excommunicated, a further excommunication is of no effect unless the person has repented, confessed, and had the excommunication listed. (An excommunication is more or less a temporary ban on receiving the sacraments (canon 1331)—it makes no sense to try and "multiply it".) Thus, if Madonna has indeed been excommunicated three times, she's had the excommunicated lifted at least twice. One would think that if this were the case, she would have mentioned it in the discussion. Furthermore, one cannot be excommunicated, per canon 1323, if one isn't aware that one is committing an act punishable by excommunication.
All things considered, then, in the absence of positive evidence that this is so, it probably isn't. Why then is she claiming it is so? It might be that she is trying to stir up animus against the Church; it could be that she is seeking notoriety; perhaps she is confused about what constitutes an excommunication and how it is handed down. Without more information (from her) it's impossible to tell.


What does this Catholic symbol mean? I have this symbol over the entrance of my apartment. I have been told it is a Catholic symbol, and the owner of the flat is probably Catholic since it is the dominant faith here.

Searching on Google has not brought much information. Any idea what it means?

I believe these are symbols of martyred apostles.

Key: Peter
Sword: Paul
Axe: Possibly Matthew
Trident: Thomas

Jacob Prahlow has collected some research.

Although an upside-down cross is associated with Peter, he was given the keys of the kingdom (Cf. Matthew 16:19) and the key is a very common symbol.

Paul, a Roman citizen, was executed by the sword rather than crucified. While the date of his death is rather hazy, the place is known and there is an enormous basilica on the site. Paul is very often depicted with one or two swords: the sword of truth and the sword of martyrdom.

Both Matthew and James brother of John are traditionally held to have been martyred by beheading. James is recorded in Acts 12 as being killed “by the sword” — Matthew’s death is not recorded, but one tradition is that he died by the axe.

One legend of Thomas’ death in India is that he was killed with a trident.


Why are Holy See-PLO's relations "special"? In an official Pope's discourse it is said:

  The Holy See currently maintains full diplomatic relations with 179 States, to which must be added the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. It also has relations of a special nature with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. (emp. mine)

Can anyone explain why the nature of Vatican - PLO' s relation is 'special'? What is 'special'?

It's special because the PLO is not a sovereign body, that is, it is not a national or supra-national body like other countries or the United Nations or European Union. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is headquartered in Rome, and is "widely considered a sovereign subject of international law" [according to a quote in Wikipedia].

Although the Palestinian National Authority was established (by the PLO) in 1994, the PLO Executive Committee performs the functions of the government of the State of Palestine. Currently, the PLO maintains a network of offices in foreign countries and also represents the PNA abroad [Wikipedia]. Thus foreign relations are maintained with the PLO rather than the Authority.

It may also be considered special because neither representative resides in the territory of the other. The PLO representative is in London, and the Apostolic Nunciature is in Tunis.


What does the Bible say about birth control? This is my first question here! I'm Christian and I've read the Bible for a while, but I haven't seen anything related to birth control.

I know that Paul says that husband and wife can agree to refrain from sexual intercourse for a while, whenever it is for dedicating more time to pray. But I don't know something more specific. On the other hand, God calls us to sexual purity, so I'm a bit confused about it.

But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother."
Genesis 38:9 - New International Version (©2011)

This is the scripture I think of when birth control is brought up. Onan's brother had died so his brother's wife came to belong to him (as was the custom then). He wasted his sperm though and God killed him for what he had done.
Children are a gift from God and were particularly seen as such in the Bible times (for instance barren women would be miserable and pray for offspring). Purposefully remaining childless while in a married relationship is something apparently common today, but not exactly natural.

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life
Exodus 21:22,23

The unborn are alive and seen by God as individuals - here causing the death of one carried the death penalty as for murder. They carry the potential to grow, as does every human, and have that potential right from the moment they were conceived (even before, as sperm).
Therefore the only form of "birth control" that I would see as Biblically OK is abstinence. If you really do not want children then it is best to stay single, as Paul advised.


What does 'do not be overrighteous' mean in Ecclesiastes? What does the following verse mean?

  Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise -  Why destroy yourself? (Ecclesiastes 7:16, NIV)

The Bible often asks us to be righteous (Psalm 106:3, Matthew 5:20) so why is Solomon's request contradicting with the other verses?

While interpreting and exegeting Ecclesiastes we need to keep in mind a couple of things. First, the preacher's observations and comments, for the most part, concern things "under the sun." True believers know, however, there is a meaning to life which transcends just the things under the sun, as good as those things might be. (One such good thing, as the preacher observes, is the enjoyment of one's work under the sun.)
Second, statements such as "be not over-righteous or over-wise" have a primary application to living life among the "heathen," shall we say. In modern parlance, we might say,

No one likes a goody-two-shoes.

No one likes a wisenheimer/smart_ _ s/wiseguy.

Who do you thing you are, acting all high and mighty?

So, why the "holier than thou" attitude?

To get along with people in the world (since we ourselves are IN the world but not OF the world, and the world's system/kingdom), we need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, as Jesus said.
In our praying, giving, and fasting, we need to be invisible--except to our heavenly Father!
To be overly righteous or wise is to risk destroying one's life unnecessarily. According to the Bible, Christians need to "fit in" as any good ambassador does, but not to go completely "native." Again, they are in the world but not of the world.
There's a fine balance there. Daniel, of the book bearing his name, achieved that balance. He was educated by heathens, but he took his faith in God more seriously. When the time came for him to choose either to bow down before the king's likeness or to maintain his integrity before God, he chose the latter.
In conclusion, Christians need God's righteousness and wisdom, but they needn't wear it on their sleeves. To do so is to risk destroying their testimony before a watching world.


Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?

I believe Martin Luther would have just said that it was a divine mystery, and something that we as mere mortals are not supposed to be able to completely comprehend:

  I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say. (Marburg Colloquy, 1529)

For Luther, Faith goes beyond reason.


Jesus' completed messianic prophecies When we look for the messianic prophecies that Jesus completed, should we only look at the Old Testament?  What would be the basis for using the prophecies which were in books written after his death?

Usually when people use the term "Messianic Prophecy," they're referring to a prophecy concerning the "Annointed One" (messiah) that was to come. (Here's a list of 45+.) These prophetic predictions/descriptions were about some yet unknown person to come.

When Jesus speaks of himself, it could certainly be described as prophecy, it doesn't exactly fit the pattern of previous "messianic prophecies."

The OT Messianic prophecies are another assertion of the validity of Jesus, because these predictions were made and recorded hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

Jesus' predictions about himself don't provide the same kind of external proof because to assume they were accurate presumes that the author is recording the truth, and that presumption is essentially assuming the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah. A pessimistic analysis of these predictions might say that they were fabricated after Jesus came and so, of course they are accurate. Whereas the Hebrews had spent the previous 400+ years studying the predictions made before Jesus' fulfillment of any of them. The accuracy of those predictions serves as proof that Jesus' coming bears the stamp of God.


On what grounds was Arius refuted at the First Council of Nicaea? What proof does anyone have that Christ was the same and identical as the one He called "Father" even when Christ himself said in John 14:10...

  Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in
  me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather,
  it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. (NIV)

Yes, Jesus was the Son of God although He never Himself said as much; He said He was "the Son of Man" only (for, I believe, He was truly humble in nature). But how can men know exactly what Christ was without experiencing a gnosis of some kind? The very fact that they proclaimed to have known what exactly Christ was precludes any so-called "evidence" they put forth.

On the other hand, Constantine was a politician/stateman and a duplicitous pagan most of his life.  How could he and his associates possibly know what exactly Christ was and make an absolute statement that He was identical to the one He called "Father" and call the Arian/Arius view a heresy?

The records of the 1st Ecumenical Council do not, I believe, include the discourse that preceded the condemnation against Arius and his followers.

We do know, however, that Athanasius of Alexandria was key in the condemnation.  He had written extensively against Arianism in his Four Discourses Against the Arians.  We can assume, I think, that many or all of the arguments from this document were brought to bear at the Council and/or that most of the Council members were familiar with them, even though the document itself seems to have been written after the council. I do not think it would be misstating things to say that the 1st Ecumenical Council was essentially an endorsement by the whole Church of a previous deposition of Arius by the bishop Alexander within the See of Alexandria.

I provided a link to Athanasius' document above, which you see is quite comprehensive and detailed, with several sections devoted to exegesis of the New Testament Scriptures, contrasting what was understood to be the Orthodox interpretation with that of the Arians.  An outline of the arguments against Arius is:

The Sonship of Christ is eternal
The Sonship of Christ is not like earthly Sonship
The personality of the Son is co-eternal with the Father

As you will see in the discourses, Athanasius was quite thorough.  On each point, he considered the Arian's argument, and then considered and refuted the Arian's interpretation of each Scriptural "proof text" offered.


What is the basis for the belief among some Protestants that Christ's teachings do not apply to us today? I have seen some Protestants arguing that Christ's teachings in the Gospels don't apply to us; that they were applicable only to the Jews, the immediate audience, since the new covenant did not begin at that time; and that only the new covenant teachings apply to us. The same is said about the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Here is one example of this doctrine, in an excerpt from an article by Paul Ellis, a popular Protestant preacher:

  .... Sadly, it didn’t happen. Since the law-teachers had been negligent,
  Jesus had to do their job before He could do His own. Before He could
  save the world from sin, He had to preach the law that made sin
  utterly sinful. Before He give Himself as the answer, He had to make
  sure we were asking the right question. Who will deliver us?

  So Jesus became the greatest law preacher of all time. As the prophet
  Isaiah had foretold, He made the law magnificent. He lifted up what
  others had knocked down and raised the standard to glorious levels of
  perfection. Never again would mankind be without excuse. You want to
  know what God expects? Just read the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus
  says that God demands perfection and nothing less.

  How did Jesus preach the law?

  Preaching the red letters of Jesus is a bit like drinking whatever you
  find in the laundry. If you’re not paying attention – if you fail to
  distinguish His life-giving words of grace from His death-dealing
  words of law – then you could really do some damage. Don’t believe me?
  Then consider these red letters:

  If you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
  will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
  Father will not forgive your sins. (Mat 6:14-15)

  This is one of the most-quoted passages in the Bible and it is vintage
  law. It is a killer scripture. It is not good news. This verse should make
  us shudder for it says that our forgiveness hinges on our ability to
  forgive others and we are poor forgivers indeed. Men sin against us
  repeatedly. Have we honestly forgiven them all? What if we miss one?
  And what do we say to those who have been raped and abused? What do
  you say to a young child who has been molested? “Sweetie, you need to
  forgive that evil man otherwise God won’t forgive you.” That’s not
  grace. That’s the condemning ministry of the law in full bloom. How do
  you forgive the unforgiveable? You can’t! Then you’re in trouble. The
  law condemns you as an unforgiver. Now you’re beginning to recognize
  your need for grace and this is a good thing.

  Any time you read a conditional statement from Jesus, you should
  interpret it as law. “Do not judge and you will not be judged” (Lk
  6:37). That’s good advice but it’s also law. To avoid something
  (judgment) you have to do something (don’t judge). It’s a blessing you
  have to pay for. And anytime Jesus makes a threat, you should
  interpret that as law as well. “Anyone who is angry with his brother
  will be subject to judgment” (Mt 5:22). That’s bad news for anyone
  with a brother!

This quote is only to give an example and evidence of this doctrine. It may not be representative of the views of all others who hold a similar doctrine.

My question:

What exactly is this view, in what sense don't these teachings apply to us today, and what are the reasons or basis given to justify this view?

The category of beliefs you are hearing about fall mainly under the heading of Dispensationalism. I'm not going to give you a detailed description,  but now you have the name you can read up in it for yourself.

My experience is that practitioners of this often have very little direct Biblical basis for preaching it (ironically since it is largely preached by conservative evangelicals who claim to teach only what the Bible says) - rather it falls out because preachers decide that some teachings in the New Testament cannot be practiced literally, so decide they must be inapplicable.

I'm aware this is not strictly an answer to the question,  but I will leave it unless someone actually comes up with a good Biblical basis for the belief.


Outdoor wedding for Catholics Does the Catholic Church allow Catholic weddings (i.e. weddings canonically recognized by the Catholic Church) to take place outdoors, even if one of the couple is not Catholic? If so, is there any specific permission that must be granted to ensure the wedding is recognized, and must this permission be granted by Church officials where the couple lives, or where the wedding will take place?

Can.  1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.
§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

Thus, according to §2, you would need permission from the "local ordinary" (bishop) to have a wedding somewhere other than in a Catholic church.


Why did God tell David to go to the town of Hebron? After the death of Saul, David asks God where he should Go. God indicates he should to to Hebron, where David is soon anointed king.

  2 Samuel 2:1 (NIV): In the course of time, David inquired of the Lord. “Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?” he asked. The Lord said, “Go up.” David asked, “Where shall I go?” “To Hebron,” the Lord answered.

Why did God chose the town of Hebron? What does the Bible say is special about it?

Unfortunately, there's no contextual verse where God says to David "...and this is why I want you to go blah blah blah." Therefore we must infer what the reason is based on the surrounding context and circumstances.
We know, from the text, that David had just finished doing battle. We also read that at the time all of Israel was under one King, Saul, who was now dead along with his son Jonathan. David is wondering whether he should come back to the cities of Judah, but God tells him to go to Hebron instead.
I think it's because God knew that the nation of Israel was about to split and God wanted to make sure that David was away from the town of Mahanaim which is where a new king of Israel was being crowned.

2nd Samuel 2:8-10 ESV But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim, and he made him king over Gilead and the Ashurites and Jezreel and Ephraim and Benjamin and all Israel. Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

2nd Samuel 3:1 ESV There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.

Though Hebron and Mahanaim were pretty far away in the first place. Hebron is C-15 on that map and Mahanaim is J-9, so there's still plenty of unanswered questions.
But it seems most likely based on a lack of detail that Hebron itself was chosen by God simply because it was a place to go and there's nothing special about the place itself. Same reason God chose the land of Canaan, or Jerusalem, or Bethlehem, or anywhere else. It's his divine purpose through David that was important.

Acts 17:26-27 ESV And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us


Does James contradict Jesus when he says some foods should not be eaten? In Matthew 15, we read:

  [Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."

We see in Mark's account that "thus He declared all foods clean."

Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them writing a letter in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches:

  For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?

There seem to be two different questions addressed by the New Testament relevant to this issue:

Does eating certain foods defile a man?
Should certain people abstain from certain foods?

I don’t think the New Testament teachings contradict. Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 declares that the first question is answered ‘no’: there is nothing inherent in certain foods that makes them defiling.

However, the answer to the second question is a tentative ‘yes’. Certainly Jews before the time of Christ were expected to keep the kosher laws. In the period directly following Jesus’ death, Jewish Christians were not about to give up their customs in an instant; they would continue to observe the kosher laws. As long as they didn’t fall prey to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees condemned by Jesus, there would be nothing very wrong with that.

The question then was: what about the Gentile Christians? Were they to keep the same laws as the Jewish Christians?

This more general question was brought up at the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (see Acts 15). (The particular case addressed at that council had to do with circumcision, but their rulings had a broader impact than that. This is the decision they reached (Acts 15:19–20 NRSV)

  [James speaking:] “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”

These restrictions placed on the Gentiles in no way encompassed all the precepts of the Torah; they are there to address the few violations which were particularly abominable to the Jews. The council did not declare that certain foods can defile a man; they only declared that at this place and time, it is better for the Gentiles not to offend the Jews by observing the things mentioned.

The issue is brought up again, once more with respect to food, in Romans 14. In this passage, Paul acknowledges the right of each Christian to act according to his own conscience. At the same time, he recognizes that the food itself is not what defiles a man (this agrees with Jesus’ teaching); he also says that those who do eat must not look down on those who don’t, and even that they should abstain if it becomes a point of contention.

The takeaway from both the Acts and the Romans passages is that extra restrictions may be placed upon certain people at certain times. However these reasons are pastoral and in no way nullify Jesus’ basic claim that no food, in and of itself, can be considered ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’.


Gender Segregation in Small Groups and Prayer TL;DR

  What Biblical justification is there for gender segregation in prayer/small groups? and has there been any study on the affect which this segregation has on the people involved?

In various churches, I often come across gender segregation in one form or another. This is even in fairly progressive churches, eg ones in university areas with large student populations. (I'm talking about the UK here. I know that progressive needs to be taken differently depending on the location. In particular, there is a significant difference between UK and US approaches to church-life.)

Perhaps the most common one of these, and the one I would like to address in this question, is to do with small groups and prayer. At one local church (the largest in the town, which is really a "university-town"), all the student small groups are completely gender segregated.
In another, the small groups are mixed gender, but at the end they separate off, male and female praying separately.

I have heard the argument that "sometimes women want to speak about certain things only with another woman". I am not a woman (in any sense), so I cannot speak personally about this. However, it seems unreasonable to make that argument regarding praying in a group of up to 10 people, many of whom you may not know well. Asking to pray individually with a (fellow) woman is a completely different matter.

So my question boils down to the following.

  What Biblical justification is there for such gender segregation?

Gender segregation gets a bad rap outside of churches for well-documented reasons. Further, there has been significant studies on the effects that it has on people.
Searching, I was unable to find material specific to the situation I describe -- understandably; it's fairly niche.

Why a particular church chooses a particular practice is ultimately a question for that church's leadership, but some Christians refer to Paul's words to Titus when discussing gender groups:

  Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women  to love their husbands and children... Titus 2:3-4(NIV®)

and

  Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness... Titus 2:6-7 (NIV®)

One interpretation of these verses is that Paul is encouraging Christians of the same gender to spend time with one another. The older women are to "teach" and "urge" the younger women, and the older women are the "encourage" and "set an example" to the younger men.

Many denominations and movements would also hold to the idea that the Apostles' words are directly from God, and therefore go beyond changes in culture. A church like this may come to conclusion that they need to create opportunities for Christians of different ages to spend time together in same-gender groups.

Different churches will come up with different 'solutions' for encouraging this to happen, and one (albeit quite brute-force) approach is to have some part of a weekly Bible Study in same-gender groups. Other churches may choose different approaches, such as informal same-gender activities, or simply allowing it to happen 'naturally' through friendships.

It's also likely that a church's decision to run same-gender groups is based on a number of factors, only one of which is a Biblical argument. For example, it may simply be the personal preferences and experience of members and leaders, some kind of 'social' argument about what people are most comfortable with (which may or may not be correct, of course), or simply a long-standing practice that no-one has really thought about. The exact details and arguments will be different for each church, and possibly even each member of an individual church (I've been at churches with same-gender studies which some members disagreed with, but not so much as to choose to leave).

Because every church will have slightly different practices, it may be difficult to do a systematic study of the effects of this gender separation that is anything more than a collection of personal opinions. I haven't been able to find anything on the subject outside of a few blog posts discussing it, and the few academic-like texts I've found tend to discuss gender separation during services.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that a living person may visit heaven or hell? As you may know there are many books where people have said they had been in hell and in heaven, and that even Jesus guided them. And that sounds a lot like Divine Comedy.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, because there are several parts of the Bible that do not fit with their stories, and also I don't believe that God would like to make us experience Hell:

  For God so loved  the world,    that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.    For  God did not send his Son into the world  to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not  believed in the name of the only Son of God. — [John 3:16-18 ESV]

Anyway, the only one who had been in hell and heaven was Jesus; this is what he said to Nicodemus in all the gospels. Also in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham told to the rich man:

  He said to him, "If they do not hear  Moses and the Prophets,  neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." — [Luke 16:25 ESV]

So, what biblical passages are used to support the idea that living people can experience hell and heaven?

It would really be helpful if you can give some Bible verses that talk more about the subject. I have been using the Nelson's Bible dictionary to understand more about it, which I recommend because it gives a list of related verses.

It happened before in the Bible, so I don't see why it cannot happen again. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, Paul the Apostle tells about a time when he is taken up to Paradise "and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (v4). He could not tell whether he was in a body or not (v3).

Perhaps the most famous occasion of a man going to heaven and coming back to earth to record the experience would be John, who wrote the book of Revelation. He saw much in heaven. It appears that he actually took notes while he was in heaven; at one point he was admonished not to write about the 7 thunders (Rev. 10:4). He was told to write what he saw and deliver it to the angels of the 7 churches (Rev 1:10-11).


What are the differences between Apostles, Prophets, Peter and Jesus Christ in being the "foundation" whereon the church is built? 1 Corinthians 3:11 Jesus Christ is the foundation whereon the church is built.

Ephesians 2:20 Both the Prophets and the Apostles are the foundation whereon the church is built.

Matthew 16:18 Simon Peter is the foundation whereon the church is built.

There are two main ways that Prophets and Apostles can be considered the foundation of the Church - their role in receiving and transmitting revelation (scripture) and their effectual ministry for Christ (service) - particularly in founding individual congregations.  Christ's role in the foundation is unique - he is the chief cornerstone (cf Ephesians 2:20): ie he sets the pattern that the other 'stones' must follow and adapt to in order to fit correctly into the building.

Simon Peter's identification as 'the' foundation must be taken with a grain of salt - Jesus used this play on words after Simon had declared that Jesus was the Christ; immediately afterwards, Jesus rebukes him after he declares that he would never let Jesus be handed over to be crucified:

  Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” - Matthew 16:23 NIV

If we are too literal about this passage, then we'd have to conclude that Satan is the foundation on which the church would be built! While many Protestants do interpret Peter as being appointed as future leader of the Church in the prior verse (v18), many Evangelicals commonly point out that there is a distinction between the name applied to Simon - Petros (Πέτρος - a stone, pebble, a small rock found along a pathway) - and the word used for rock in the same verse (πέτρα - a mass of connected rock, solid or native rock rising up through the earth) and that it makes more sense that 'the rock' is actually not referring to the man himself, but the revelation given to him by the Father. In any event, there can be no denying that Peter did play a key role in helping to lay the foundation of the early church: his sermon given at Pentecost was actually the first public declaration of what he had privately declared and been commended for previously - Jesus is the Christ.

There is much more that could be said, but I believe this is the essence of the foundation that the Church is built on - Jesus is the Christ. The Prophets (of the Old Testament) prophesied concerning him; The Apostles bore witness to him and declared his gospel; but He himself provided the key, the pattern to what the Prophets of old were talking about and the message that went forth with the Apostles - the message is the foundation, and Jesus himself is that message.


Why does Intelligent Design reject evolution, even intelligently designed and executed evolution? Intelligent Design is a current brand of natural philosophy that at its simplest holds that the Universe (ie, everything) has been designed intelligently. It opposes ideas like a spontaneous beginning or an eternal universe.

But the proponents of ID, eg Behe, Dembski, Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.. all seem to be explicitly against any form of (macro) evolution, even if intelligently designed and executed. Why reject theistic evolution?

The Intelligent Design Debate is all about getting people to admit there is some creator of the universe rather than Evolution.  Its not about saying this creator is God or some other such deity.
IMHO it is used as a stepping stone as people who don't want to believe there is a God can swallow the idea easier.
To summarise the ID theory:

Irreducible Complexity: Even when you reduce biological organisms down to their most basic systems they are still too complex to happen randomly.
Specified Complexity: Biological organisms are not just complex but they are specified or ordered complexity. Since the pattern (or order) specified to make biological organisms they can't happen randomly.
Intelligent Designer: When both the above are true there must be an Intelligent designer.

(DISCLIAMER: I may have gotten parts of the ID thoery wrong in my attempt to simplify it please help correct me if I have.)
EDIT:- To address the (macro) Evolution stance:
I can't say for certain as I am not associated with any ID organisation but my theory would be that if macro Evolution was the method that the Intelligent designer used to create organisms it would give rise to the ability that it could be done again (evolve). (ID theory was brought out of an anti-evolution philosophy. Does that make it biased? I'm not sure but I like when we question long held blind-beliefs.)
Keep in mind that both Evolution theory and the Intelligent Design theory are still theories.  Neither of which (no matter how many people believe it is true) have any substantial proof either way.


What is the Biblical basis for concluding 'Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD)'? Of course Christianity believes Jesus is God, but I am interested in this question for the argument that Jehovah (I AM), the name of God which later Jews were not allowed to speak, is a term not unique to the Father. In other words, is this special name 'I AM' just as valid for the Son, as it is the Father?

Is Jesus = (Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH) in the flesh?

Note: Yahweh/YHWH are just more original Hebrew representations of the English word Jehovah or capital LORD in our Bibles. These are all the same meaning, i.e. the name 'I AM'.

In Trinitarian orthodoxy,

יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), commonly referred to as "the Tetragrammaton," is the name of God.
The Father is God, and thus, the name of the Father is Yahveh.
The Son is God, and thus, the name of the Son is Yavheh.
The Holy Spirit is God, and thus, the name of the Holy Spirit is Yahveh.
As there is only one God, there is only one name, Yahveh (יהוה), shared by the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

To note, יהיה - no matter what one assumes the nekkudot to be - could not translate into English as "I am." That would be אֶהְיֶה (ehyeh).

Zech. 2:11 proves that there is more than one person named Yahveh:

  And many nations shall be joined to Yahveh in that day and shall be My people, and I will dwell in your midst (cp. Zech. 2:10), and you shall know that Yahveh of hosts sent Me to you (cp. Zech. 2:9).

Note the two persons identified by the name Yahveh (יהוה). The one who sends is the Father, and the one who is sent to dwell among Israel is the Son. This theme is especially emphasized in the Gospel and Epistles of John (cp. John 1:14; John 8:42; 1 John 4:14).


According to Mormons, why did God make Eve's childbearing painful? This question is about the following explanation from this page at lds.org:

  “If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would
  have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created
  must have remained in the same state in which they were after they
  were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

  “And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they
  would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they
  knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

And the passage in Genesis 3:16 (NIV) records the following statement from God to Eve after the "fall":

  To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very
  severe;with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire
  will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The question is: why would God make Eve's childbearing severe and painful after the fall, if the fall was needed for them to accomplish God's plan?

(I would have thought the verbal expression from God in this case should then have been something along the lines of "Yesss! Congrats! You chose well, both of you. Now go forth and multiply.")

While there may not be a direct answer, that is specifically answered in LDS (Mormons) doctrine, there are a few that together may provide an answer. The LDS have a strong belief in opposites.

2 Nephi 2:11

  For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

The LDS also believe in having children and that they are a blessing. Elder Neil L. Anderson said:

  It is a crowning privilege of a husband and wife who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for these spirit children of God. We believe in families, and we believe in children.1

The LDS understand that pain is part of being mortal2.

But like everything pain has it's opposite: joy, happiness, etc (which come later). (in my words)

On intense pain Elder Robert D. Hales said:

  In the past two years, I have waited upon the Lord for mortal lessons to be taught me through periods of physical pain, mental anguish, and pondering. I learned that constant, intense pain is a great consecrating purifier that humbles us and draws us closer to God’s Spirit.3

See also:

The Family - A Proclamation to the World

Opposition in All Things

1 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/children?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/the-sanctity-of-the-body?lang=eng

3 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/healing-soul-and-body?lang=eng

Emphasis added by me


Why is the Textus Receptus important? I've seen it mentioned that some translations use the Textus Receptus and others don't, so why is this document important?

The Textus Receptus, the 'Received Text' is the Greek text of scripture that is represented in several published editions, principally Erasmus 1514 and following editions up to 1527, Stephens ('Stephanus') 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894. See Textus Receptus Bibles.

The Authorised Version can be considered to be an edition of the Received Text in English for the translators did not publish their Greek text in 1611. Scrivener published what he understood to be their source material in 1894.

The oldest known edition of the Received Text - in English - that I know of is the Wessex Gospels produced in about 990 AD in Middle English, which edition, notably, contains both the long ending of Mark 16 and also the account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11 the so-called Pericope de Adultera.  It is translated from the Greek and consists only of the four gospel accounts.

There is a division of thought regarding the ancient, original Greek scriptures. Up until 1881, the King James Authorised Version was 'the bible' as far as the vast majority of English speaking people were concerned.

Then, it was decided to improve the translation and certain chosen people were gathered to carry out that necessary task, for there were corrections and improvements necessary. However, two of the appointed persons privately approached every other member of the committee and introduced the individual participators to their own, new Greek text. Westcott and Hort are their names.

The outcome of this was that the Revised Version of the bible was not an improvement of the Authorised Version but was a translation of a new Greek text. The text of the AV is close to what is called the Received Text or the Textus Receptus. The Greek original manuscripts - there are thousands of them - on which this text is based, are from the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries and following centuries.

Westcott and Hort argue that a few manuscripts which are older than that are of massive importance and they argue that those few manuscripts should be allowed to predominate over the huge majority of later writings. They made particular reference to a manuscript discovered by Tischendorf in about 1860 and to one in the Vatican which became available to scholars at about the same time. These are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

The opposite argument is that these ancient copies - from the 2nd century or so - are deeply flawed and that is why they survived. They were little used because they were not highly regarded. The good copies were read and re-read and used so much that they deteriorated and had to be replaced.

This side of the divide also queries whether Divine Providence would permit thousands of manuscripts, and quotations of scripture in other books, to be available for many centuries, yet suffer the 'most important' evidence to be unavailable to the Christian Church until the 19th century.

The differences in the subsequent Westcott and Hort text, caused by alterations, omissions and additions to the Received Text amount to 7% of the text as can be seen in Scrivener's comparative text of 1894 in which he highlights the differences.

All of the above can be read in various Wikipedia articles but this is a controversial subject and opinions are being propagated within what ought to be unbiased expressions of truth. I have tried my best not to take one side or the other in what I have expressed here. But I have personally followed one side of this divide for the past fifty years, ever since I was a teenager.

Wikipedia, and other sources, will refer to 'uncials' which are ancient manuscripts written in capital letters and 'miniscules', which are manuscripts written in smaller writing which is 'cursive', that is, ordinary handwriting; they will refer to 'versions' which are the translation of the Greek scriptures into other languages, such as Syriac; they will refer to 'Patristic Citations' which are the quotations of the fathers of the Christian Church (such as Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius) in the books which they wrote; and they will refer to 'Lectionary Quotations' which are bible texts preserved in ancient books of church service, similar to the Common Prayer Book of more modern times.

Then there is the 'Septuagint' the Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture, which may, or may not, have been quoted by apostolic writers; and there is the 'Vulgate' which is the Latin translation of the Greek scripture, written, largely by Jerome, in the 4th century.

All of this evidence is used in collation, such that errors in copying can be eliminated by comparisons made across the whole spectrum of evidence until agreement is reached as to what were the original 'autographs' - the actual written words of the apostolic writers who wrote in the first century after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize marriages performed by non-denominational ministers? I am seeking my Ordained Minister License and was asked to perform the wedding ceremony of my brother and his future bride, who are studying to become Jehovah's Witnesses.  Do JWs require a particular Ordained Minister License to perform marriages in their denomination?

As your brother and sister-in-law are not yet baptized members of Jehovah's Witnesses it would not matter who performed their legal marriage ceremony. In fact a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses can be married by a Justice of the Peace if they so desire. A member of the congregation could even be married by one of the couple's fathers or good friends if that person meets the qualifications set forth by that particular state's laws for officiating a wedding.

Where things would become more complicated would be in two scenarios:

1). If the couple were to be married by you, in a church, as part of a religious ceremony this would be frowned upon by the individuals studying with them and by the religion in general. Because Jehovah's Witnesses consider all other religious to be false, just attending religious ceremonies at a non-JW church would generally be considered taboo. (See "Question from Readers" Watchtower 2002 5/15.) So, your brother and sister-in-law being married as part of a religious ceremony would definitely run them afoul of the congregants with which they study.

Another point that may illustrate the JW stance on matters of interfaith, is that as an individual grows closer to baptism, if they are a former member of another religion, they are urged to send a letter of resignation to that church so that they are in no way connected with what is considered "false religion." (See "Keep Clear From False Religion" Watchtower 2006 3/15)

2). The other scenario, though less likely, is if you would want to perform the ceremony at one of Jehovah's Witnesses places of worship (Kingdom Hall). In that case it would not be possible as generally only Jehovah's Witnesses Elder's are allowed to perform religious services at a Kingdom Hall. Of course being that your loved ones are not yet baptized they would not be able to marry at a Kingdom Hall in the first place. Only baptized members of the religion, who are in good standing, would be able to avail themselves of the Kingdom Hall facilities.

So to summarize: If you are chiefly officiating the legal proceeding of the wedding (which may include all of the traditional activities associated with a wedding such as reciting of vows and exchanging of rings) then there should be no issues. However if the ceremony also has heavy religious overtones or is held at a church, if your brother and sister-in-law are as far along it would appear, this would definitely create friction for them. Hope this info is helpful!


Did the Bull, Unam Sanctam, authorize/promote Christian aggression by the "temporal sword"? Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Papal bull entitled, Unam Sanctam. In it, he speaks of two swords: the spiritual sword (gladius spiritualis) and the temporal sword (gladius temporalis).

  We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in
  its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal.

  In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur.

Did this Papal bull authorize Christian aggression by the sword (i.e., offensive military action), or does it simply implore Christians to defend themselves against the aggression of others? Or, none of the above?

And, is this Papal bull still in force today?

Pope Boniface VIII said there are two swords:

  Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual
  power.

By this, he was asserting that ultimate authority lay in the Church under his rule. In this bull, he was not promoting military action, nor proposing that Christians should defend themselves. He was stating that secular rulers must be subordinated to the Church and carry out its commands. The concluding remark in the bull is, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Shortly after Boniface's death, Pope Clement V withdrew Unam Sanctam, so this bull is no longer in force although it was not the last time that popes attempted to assert authority over temporal rulers.


What, exactly, happened to the good thief on the cross, and why? (Catholic perspective) Jesus says to the thief on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). What does this mean? Did the thief go straight to heaven when he died? Did he get to skip purgatory? If so, why? It would seem that he did no or minimal good works, and it's most likely that he wasn't baptised.

Ideas that bubble to mind include perfect contrition, baptism of desire/baptism of blood, and also the idea that God is not bound by his sacraments, so this guy was a special case who received extrasacramental grace direct from Jesus. I'm not sure how to put it all together though.

Much of the Question has already been answered, so I will address the concern of the OP.

“It would seem that he did no or minimal good works, and it's most likely that he wasn't baptised.”

As to his Baptism:
The CCC defines Martyr as fallows

MARTYR: A witness to the truth of the faith, in which the martyr endures even death to be faithful to Christ. Those who die for the faith before having received Baptism are said to have received a “baptism of blood,” by which their sins are forgiven and they share in the death and Resurrection of Christ

The fallowing passages detail more the benefits to the Martyr as it pertains to Baptism.

CCC 2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”
CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)
CCC 852 Missionary paths. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist, “the principal agent of the whole of the Church’s mission.” It is he who leads the Church on her missionary paths. “This mission continues and, in the course of history, unfolds the mission of Christ, who was sent to evangelize the poor; so the Church, urged on by the Spirit of Christ, must walk the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and self-sacrifice even to death, a death from which he emerged victorious by his resurrection.” So it is that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.”

As to His Works:
Now, as every Good Bible Believing Protestant will tell you, the only thing the Good Thief on the did was have faith and he was saved.  Well, if that was true I might be a Protestant.

Luke 23=39-43
One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

The passage above is the interaction between the Good thief and our Lord, but starts with the ridicule of the bad thief.

"Are you not the Messiah? Save Yourself and Us!"

This behavior was prophesied in the Old Testament, already experienced. See Matthew 27:40, Hebrews 2:8 as it refers to the Temptation by Satan in the desert.

“Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation"?

The words of the God thief, chastising his fellow robber on the Cross, defending the Dying Christ as he suffers with Christ on the Cross. The effort it must have taken to say these words under such conditions.  While dying, he uses his last moments in life to stand up for a suffering man, a man suffering just like himself.

"And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds"

He confesses his sins and accepts his punishment as just for his Crimes: Reconciliation and Repentance said out loud and publicly.

"but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The Thief now recognizes the sinless bridegroom, Proclaims his innocence not only to the Bad thief but to all those who are at Calvary: a public recognition of him being the spotless lamb.

“Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

The thief's final statement, the recognition that Christ is King, but not of this world, but the world to come, and that Christ has the power to save him.  Can you imagine, the Holy Spirit Giving Christ such a gift even as he is suffering and dying, recognition of his Kingdom.
Faith Alone?  I think not.  He suffered with the Christ, in the same manner that Christ himself suffered; he didn't do it silently or without works, he did it in such a way that his very actions saved him.  His works were many, and his baptism was the same as Christ's Baptism unto death.


How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil? How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil? As it was said that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong.
Genesis 3:22:

  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

With that said God also said that if they were to eat from the Tree than they would surely die:
Genesis 2:17

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

He was told by God not to eat from it or he shall die. But, without the knowledge of what is Good and what is Bad how would have have known that disobeying God was bad?

First, be careful not to conflate the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Genesis narrative makes it clear that they are two different trees, and are in fact in opposition to each other:

  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.

As for the answer to the question, the tree of knowledge could give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil in general, but that doesn't mean that they had no concept beforehand that there was something wrong with disobeying God in matters in which they had been given a direct commandment.