Was each "Book" of the Old Testament on a separate scroll prior to the second century A.D.? In this passage of Luke, it seems like the Book of Isaiah was on its own individual scroll. Do we have historical evidence or references that show whether this was always the case, or if some Books of the Old Testament were combined prior to the second century A.D.?

  Luke 4:17  "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He
  unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written"

I have been to a Jewish synagogue service before and the Torah scroll they brought out for the Torah reading was huge, but also contained the entire Pentateuch on a single scroll. I'm not sure if that is just a modern practice, or occurred historically as well.

The answer appears to be «usually» but «with some exceptions», and also «the experts aren't completely sure».

We can divide the sources adduced into indirect evidence (references to scrolls in ancient documents) and direct evidence (scrolls).

Indirect Evidence

Old Testament

The word used in the passage quoted in the question is βιβλίον.1  While it is the most common word to designate a scroll, it is not specific to a scroll; it can label any collection of writing.  In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), the phrase τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου (the βιβλίον of the law; translating sēper tôrāh) and τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης (the βιβλίον of the covenant; sēper bᵉrı̂t) are common, particularly in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Here they generally seem to be abstract references to the collection of Yahweh's revelation to Moses (e.g. Deut 28:61, 29:20).

The other two clusters of usage are more concrete so perhaps more relevant: the parallel accounts of the "book" (sēper > βιβλίον) found in the temple that was the impetus for the reforms of Josiah (2 Chr 34; 2 King 22-23). This is described as a single item that is found, handed back and forth, and finally read (apparently in a single sitting). Although the precise contents of that "book" have been a matter of considerable debate, I think most scholars would identify it with Deuteronomy, or some portion thereof (Dillard), bolstering the identity between scroll and book. If one thinks the "book of the law" as the entire Pentateuch, of course, this would provide evidence for a very early compilation of multiple books on a single scroll.

New Testament

The OP brings an important piece of evidence from the NT. This description of the Isaiah scroll is emphatically concrete ("he unrolled the scroll..."). I agree with the OP's sense that this is probably a relevant reference to a single scroll containing the book of Isaiah. There are several other NT references to be dealt with in this regard:

  For it is written in the βίβλος of the Pslams (Acts 1:20, cf. Luke 20:42)
  ...as it is written in the βίβλος of the prophets (Acts 7:42, citing Amos 5)
  ...have you not read in the βίβλος of Moses in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him...? (Mark 12:26, citing Exodus 3)
  Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all of those things written in the βιβλίον of the law (Gal 3:10, quoting LXX Deut 27:26)

Although these all connect the terminology of βίβλος with a particular book or collection thereof, they are all most likely intended abstractly, similar to those in Deuteronomy and Joshua, without a concrete referent.

Baylonian Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Baba Bathra, Folia 14a) mentions the "Scroll of the Law" and the "Scroll of the Prophets". In both cases, the physical characteristics are described, and it is evident that a single scroll was in view. The existence of such a scroll has been called into question (Tov, 1998), although there is no proof one way or the other.

Direct Evidence

The direct evidence must come from the only ancient scrolls we have of the Hebrew Bible: the (so-called2 ) Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Many of these are fragmentary, but scholars have tediously pieced them together so that in most cases we know which fragments below to a single scroll. Among these estimated 210-212 biblical scrolls, there is evidence of 10 scrolls that contained more than one book of the Torah. The most substantial strictly Biblical texts mostly consist of two consecutive books (Tov, 2012):

4QGen-Exoda
4QpaleoGen-Exod1
4QExod-Levf
4QLev-Numa
4QDeutj (includes Exodus)

There is possible evidence for a complete Torah scroll (Mur 1, from Wadi Murabba'at, including Genesis-Exodus and possibly Numbers), although the extent of this scroll beyond Genesis-Exodus is a matter of debate.

In addition, there are the curious fragments of the so-called "reworked Pentateuch" (see also, Zahn). Although historically (i.e. in early years of DSS research) these were often not counted among the Biblical manuscripts, scholars more recently tend to include them despite considerable deviations from the (now) canonical text. These each contained between 2 and 5 of the Pentateuchal books apparently on a single scroll; 4QRPc is the manuscript that contains clear evidence of all five books. The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls reflects on this:

  It is of interest to note that our evidence indicates that, unlike the other Torah manuscripts from Qumran, in which copies of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are preserved on single scrolls, or, at most, two books to a scroll, the Reworked Pentateuch copied all five books on one scroll, which would have made a complete scroll longer (twenty-two to twenty-seven meters [seventy-two to eighty-nine feet]) than any other found at Qumran. (Crawford)

Why it is that these scrolls were constructed in such large proportions remains a mystery.  It does indicate, at least, that there was no fixed limit to the length of the scroll due to physical constraints at the time the Qumran documents were composed.

Finally, we should remember that the "Book of the Twelve" (minor prophets) has been considered a single "book" in Jewish tradition for as long as we have manuscript evidence. There are (relatively) well-preserved Hebrew and Greek versions of "The Twelve" among the DSS, each a single scroll. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are also each a single "book" in the Jewish canon and in the available ancient evidence.

Summary

The Biblical evidence generally points toward one book per scroll.
The Babylonian Talmud refers to a scroll containing the entire Pentateuch, but this remains unconfirmed.
The DSS generally include one book per scroll; there are a few that include two.
Among the "reworked Pentateuch" manuscripts from among the DSS, at least one scroll contained the entire (reworked) Pentateuch. However, these are not strictly canonical by modern Christian standards.

1. Used interchangeably with βίβλος in the NT (Silva) and in this answer.

2. The DSS are not all from the immediate vicinity of the Dead Sea. "Scrolls from the Judean Desert" seems to be the more accurate label, but this hasn't caught on. See the introduction to the discovery sites on the Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library page.

References

Sidnie White Crawford. "Reworked Pentateuch." Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (OUP, 2000).

Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC; Zondervan, 1987), 280.

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed., Fortress Press, 2012), 96ff.

Emanuel Tov, The Dimensions of the Qumran Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries (1998), pp 69-91.

Moises Silva, "βίβλος" in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Zondervan, 2014).

Molly M. Zahn, The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above? Dead Sea Discoveries (2008), pp. 315-339.


According to reformed theology, is there any valid reason to desire to be saved besides it glorifies God? Question:

According to reformed theology, is there any valid reason to desire to be saved besides it glorifies God?

As a result:

According to reformed theology, is it valid to desire to be saved because Hell is rather unpleasant?
According to reformed theology, should one pray: "God, if it glorifies you to save me, save me; God, if it glorifies you to send me to hell, send me to hell."

Thanks!

In one sense it is very true to say these things according to a reformed theology but as it is hypothetical is can also be misleading. In fact I have notived many modern teachers and pachers actually confuse themselves on and do not understand it in the same way as those they quote from generations past.

The truth is yes, true virtue must love the goodness of God above all else to the absorption of everything else, therefore ‘if it be thy glorious will send me to hell’ is the hypothetical end of the truth.  In this sense it is true and even said by many reformed theologians. However as God’s goodness is very much enjoined in his desire that he does not send you to hell it could be drastically misleading.

The truth is, faith makes our own selfish desires fix upon God, so that we believe it is more blessed to give than receive. Faith makes our pleasure or love of things turn into pleasure and love of God. God becomes our ultimate desire, enjoyment, purpose, means and ends.  To love is is to desire and enjoy.  In this sense it is also true to say, within reformed theology, a Christian is the most ‘spiritually selfish person ever’ for they go about seeking their best at every turn (seeking God) while sinners go about foolishly causing themselves harm in ever deed (turning from God).  So by faith worldly selfishness is harming one’s self and selflessness is the perfection of Christian selfishness (that is looking out for what is best for self).

The reason why these ideas can be turned over on themselves is simply that God is good and part of the proof, if not the primary proof, is his good-will towards men in Christ’s dying love. No theologian in the reformation would separate God's glory, from his goodness for men in the love of Christ, for they amount to the same thing.

Furthermore, due to original sin, a sinner can only come to God with empty and sinful motives, coming to a fountain of life who alone can put the love of God and goodness in him.  That ‘needy approach’ or being ‘poor n spirit’ remains strong and steady after conversion as well, this is why the scriptures persuade us to come with both promises and warnings, which appeal to our own selfish needs in order to help us choose what is best day to day. In this sense the only valid reason to come to God for salvation is a honest selfish one. To pretend that we can come to the fountain of righteousness 'with righteousness' rather then 'empty hands' is an hypothetical concept with know real basis. This 'humble selfish needy begging' like morally bankrupt soul's such as we truly hace, very much pleases God and glorifies his grace especially in its blessed and happy results that it brings. Those who come to God like this are those. whose souls are satisfied drinking Christ’s blood and eating his body for nourishment and joyful salvation. There is no other way to come and feed off the death of another but in selfish need amd concern.

There is some truth therefore in the ‘self’ aspect of the command to 'love our neighbour as yourself'. The fact is God has made you have most power and direct control in taking care of yourself and in the same manner your must care for others. In faith love for God, others and self have no conflict but are mutually implied by each other. God's glory is just the manifestation of his love and good will radiating towards our knowledge, dependence and rejoicing in it. It will even bring us so much joy that we might even say something crazy in rare holy moments, like ‘If it be thy will do things against thy will’. Love for self and others is one stream of love for God, which is the only true holy desire, but this desire can only arise from faith in God's love for us in Christ's work on the cross.


What is the earliest use of the phrase "God the Son"? Does the phrase "God the Son" appear in manuscripts or early translations (Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc.) of the New Testament scriptures? If not, when did the phrase enter into the Christian vernacular?

This question is complicated, of course, by the fact that we must work with translations of the original texts in order to find this wording. However, at least three second-century authors use this phrasing when translated into English: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, and Clement of Alexandria.
Justin Martyr (100–165) writes, in Dialogue with Trypho:

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.1
Καὶ ὅτι κύριος ὢν ὁ Χριστός, καὶ θεὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς ὑπάρχων, καὶ δυνάμει φαινόμενος πρότερον ὡς ἀνὴρ καὶ ἄγγελος, καὶ ἐν πυρὸς δόξῃ, ὡς ἐν τῇ βάτῳ, πέφανται καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεγενημένης ἐπὶ Σόδομα, ἀποδέδεικται ἐν πολλοῖς τοῖς εἰρημένοις.

At least one translation of Athenagoras's Plea for the Christians (~177) includes the specified phrasing, but see the note for an alternative translation:

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?2
τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι τοὺς ἄγοντας θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους

Clement of Alexandria (150–215) writes in Salvation of the Rich Man:

They rave about the carcase, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in an earthen vessel” we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.3
καὶ μαίνονται περὶ τὸ σαρκίον, οὗ καταφρονοῦσιν ὡς ἀσθενοῦς, τῶν ἔνδον ὄντες τυφλοὶ κτημάτων, οὐκ ἐπιστάμενοι πηλίκον τινὰ "θη σαυρὸν ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει" βαστάζομεν, δυνάμει θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ αἵματι θεοῦ παιδὸς καὶ δρόσῳ πνεύματος ἁγίου περιτετειχισμένον.

I'm unable to find this phrasing in the earliest fathers, like Polycarp or Ignatius, suggesting that the middle of the 2nd century is the earliest such record available to us.

References:

Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 128, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  "God the Son" also appears in a modern translation, published 2003, in Selections from the Fathers of the Church.
A Plea for the Christians, chapter 10, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  In a 1956 translation, the phrasing is "Who then would not be amazed hearing those called atheists who call God Father and Son and Holy Spirit...?"
Salvation of the Rich Man, chapter 34, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  The same language is used in Butterworth's 1919 translation.


What guidelines or rules should be used when interpreting the Bible? It seems that a lot of misunderstanding of the Bible comes from scripture being taken out of context. What are some other rules or guidelines for taking a literal  or first interpretation (like 'Jesus wept'), or figurative or second interpretation (like most of Revelations)?

An important rule is "be humble."  Recognize that your interpretation is likely to be wrong and certain to be incomplete. Be open to letting Holy Scripture change you.

A related rule is to study and interpret Holy Scripture in the company of others. You can gather in the flesh, and you can study in the company of scholars by reading their books.

Be as aware as you can of your own prejudices and spiritual blind spots as you engage with scripture.

Avoid using short "proof texts" and single translations.  The more important the conclusion you draw from Holy Scripture, the broader the textual support you should enlist for your conclusion.  Sometimes the one word that's most important to you doesn't mean precisely what you hope it means.

Let scripture fill you with joy.


Does God encourage hurting or killing others in his name in the Bible? In the Quran there is this passage:

  And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. (Quran 9:5)

As seen here, extremist interpretations of this verse push Islamists towards violence against others.

Does the Bible have anything similar to this, encouraging hurting or killing people who defy God?

I know there is Matthew 10:14-15, but that is reserved for the Judgement day.

So is there any place in the Bible where God encourages or commands others to be harmed or killed in His name?

Short answer
There is not a single passage in the New Testment that even encourages phisical violence against others.
Long answer
Yes, at the Old Testment you have some instructions that involves death penalty, for example, for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), and so forward.
But now, you have to understand that all this penalties were restricted to the context of the nation of Israel, at the time of the Law, and this all was a glimpse of God's moral standards. But when Christ comes at the plenty of time, when it comes to the New Testment, like says the Author of the book of Hebrews, "when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also". You now notice that all violence now is figuratively turn to the self, no more to the other.
You are told not to persecute, but to love the ones that persecute you.
If you suffer for the Name of the Lord, you don't repay, you rejoice.
You don't have to strike others, but to stike yourself (figurativelly, of course).
If someone do you harm, the Lord will give repay (not you in the name of the lord).
If someone blaspheme, you just hand them to Satan, not by killing them, but by simply removing them from communion.
The thing here is: you have no mention in the NT to, personally, do phisical harm to another. This idea is even contrary to the whole premise of the NT teaching. Instead, you have lot of instruction to suffer the harm for love of the other.
External resource
And, finally, here is a great article with a comparision of Violence found in Bible x Violence found in Quran (This article is great dealing even with the Old Testment violence). There, i think, you'll find a solid base to answer your real question.


Are Christians still persecuted in Afghanistan? In the past there have been reports that Christians are persecuted in Afghanistan.

Is this still true?

Yes it is.  Open Door lists Afghanistan as the 4th 'worst' place in the world for Christian persecution.  While the population of Christians there is small relative to the total population, the persecution is still listed as 'extreme'.


Is there a theological lesson (modern or traditional) in who carved the tablets for each set of the Ten Commandments? With regard to the actual stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (not the writing on them), in the first case it clearly describes the tablets of being made by Yahweh, whereas in the second case they are carved by Moses.

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction." (Exodus 24:12)
Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets which were written on both sides; they were written on one side and the other. The tablets were God's work, and the writing was God's writing engraved on the tablets. (Exodus 32:15)

Compared to:

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." (Exodus 34:1)
So he cut out two stone tablets like the former ones, and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up to Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand. (Exodus 34:4)

The fact that this detail is explicitly written down suggests that it may have some theological significance, as opposed to being just a recording of a historical fact.
What theological lesson have Christian theologians and Bible expositors drawn from this detail about the two sets of tablets of the Ten Commandments?

I can answer this question from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), and the denominations that accept his theology.

This answer is extracted from my article, "How God Speaks in the Bible to Us Boneheads." For a fuller explanation of these passages about the Ten Commandments, and of the giving of the Ten Commandments in general as it applies to the specific form that the Bible took, please see that article.

Divine tablets vs. human tablets

Here is the significance of the tablets and the writing on the tablets as distilled from Secrets of Heaven (traditionally known by its Latin title, Arcana Coelestia) #10453, by Emanuel Swedenborg:

The tablets represent the outward form of the Bible. In other words,
they represent its literal meaning, with all of the history, poetry,
and prophecy it offers.
The writing on the tablets represents the inward form of the Bible,
which is the divine truth it contains. In other words, it represents
the Bible’s deeper, spiritual meaning.

(For more on these two levels of meaning in the Bible, see the article, "Can We Really Believe the Bible?")

After making these points, Swedenborg goes on to offer a fascinating interpretation of the difference between the first set tablets, which were made by God, and the second set of tablets, which were made by Moses but had the same words written on them by God:

  There is a secret that has been unknown up to now in the fact that
  Moses broke the tablets that were the work of God when he saw the calf
  and the dancing, and in the fact that Moses, as commanded by Jehovah,
  carved out another set of tablets, on which the same words were then
  inscribed, so that the tablets were no longer made by God but by
  Moses, though the writing was still God’s writing. The secret is that
  the literal meaning of the Bible would have been different if the
  Bible had been written among a different culture, or if the particular
  culture in which it was written had been different than it actually
  was. The literal meaning of the Bible is all about that culture
  because that is the culture in which it was written. This is clear
  from the stories and prophecies in the Bible. (Secrets of Heaven
  10453:3)

Imagine for a moment what the Bible might have been like if instead of being written in ancient Hebrew culture, it had been written in ancient Chinese culture. How different would it have been?

For one thing, dragons wouldn't have gotten such a bad rap! In Chinese culture, dragons are a symbol of strength, power, and good luck. If the Bible had been written in China, there's no way Eve would have been tempted by a serpent--which is later identified as a dragon, and as the devil or Satan (Revelation 12:9; 20:2).

If the Bible had been written in China, instead of being all about ancient Hebrew culture, its stories, prophecies, and poetry would be all about ancient Chinese culture--which has its own unique character.

And yet, being the Word of God, the deeper meaning within those very different outward stories would still be the same.

This is the symbolism of the tablets being carved out by Moses, but the words being written on them by God.

In his encounters with God, Moses represented the whole Israelite nation. He was a Hebrew, and he was the leader of the Hebrew people. Symbolically, when Moses carved out a new set of tablets, this means that the specific outward form of the Bible would be shaped and determined by the particular, unique character of the Hebrew people.

When we read the Bible, that is precisely what we find: stories, prophecies, and poetry that are indelibly stamped with the history and culture of the Jewish people.

In the New Testament we find stories and prophecies indelibly stamped with both Hebrew and Greek culture, salted with a dash of Rome.

But . . . if the Bible is the story of a particular human culture, how can it be the Word of God?

That's where the words written on the tablets by the finger of God come in.

The treasure chest and its treasures

You see, the literal meaning of the Bible--the stories, the prophecy, the poetry--is not the divine truth itself. It is a container for divine truth. It is like a treasure chest containing diamonds, rubies, and gold.

The chest could have been made in any culture. Each culture would have made it differently. From the outside it might look as if it had nothing in common with what we know as the Bible. And yet, if we opened it up to see the deeper meanings within, we would find the same precious diamonds, rubies, and gold of eternal divine truth hidden inside that very different container.

Another way of thinking of it is that the literal meaning of the Bible is like a matrix, and the spiritual meaning is like a gem in the matrix. The matrix itself is a coarse mixture of low-quality minerals. But within that rough matrix lies a beautiful gem worthy of a royal crown. Though the matrix isn't much to look at, it plays an essential role both in the formation of the gem and in preserving and delivering it intact to its eventual proud owner.

The stories and prophecies in the Bible may be a rough mix depicting a culture that was crude and primitive by today's standards. But that rough exterior serves to contain and deliver divine truth to us in a form that we can understand and appreciate.


Did Satan ever see the glory of God? Known:

The seraphim, possibly among the most powerful of created beings, cover their face in the presence of God:

  Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

For Christians, one of the highest (if not the highest) privilege of heaven is seeing the glory of God.

  http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/god-is-the-gospel--2

Question:

Satan -- before his fall -- did he observe the glory of God?

Short answer: We don't know.

Speculation: Yes, Satan saw the Glory of God but not necessarily the face of God.

There are two famous verses believed to describe the history of Satan;

Isaiah 14:12-15  and Ezekiel 28:12-18.

Ezekiel described him as a Cherub. Isaiah called him "Morning Star". According to Wikipedia Seraphim are the closest to God and of the highest class, Cherubs are the next. According to Ezekiel, the wicked Cherub (Satan) possessed wisdom, beauty and perfection. The mighty Cherub became proud of his beauty which led to his downfall.

According to Isaiah the mighty angel was cast out of Heaven due to his wicked intention to become like God. He said "I will make myself like the Most High". This could mean that Satan, before his fall, saw the glory of God, His power, His dominion, and Satan wanted all of that for himself. Then, the rebellious angel was cast out of Heaven.

The Seraphs are found only in Isaiah 6:2. They are always praising God and are the nearest to God but they never looked at God face to face, they always cover their faces. Though they are highest class of angels, they dare not look at God. Therefore, we may conclude that even the mighty Cherub (Satan) might never have seen the face of God.


How did the early Christians and Apostles Get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? How did the early Christians and Apostles get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? Acts 2:46-47 reads:
"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
But how is it possible they could get into the temple every day? Wouldn't the Jews stone them to death for preaching Jesus as God? The Jews would have heavily outnumbered them, I don't understand how this could have happened. Why did they "enjoy the favor of all the people?" Wouldn't the people hate them for declaring that a man is God? Or at a minimum, wouldn't at least the Pharisees hate them?
I just don't understand how this could have happened. Even in 2021, if a Christian were to walk up to the wailing wall (the last remnants of the temple) and started declaring that Jesus is God, they would at a minimum be escorted away, but they might get worse treatment than that. Surely in 30 AD they would have been killed for this? Or at least permanently banned with the threat of death if they ever entered again?
Can anyone shed light on this issue? It makes me question how the Bible can be true, because logically this just doesn't make any sense at all at first glance. What am I missing?

Insufficient Authority

This answer sheds light on the question: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute
The Jews were not permitted to sentence a person to death without the consent of the governing Roman official. The above article (citing Josephus) shows how, after one official (Porcius Festus) died in office, before his replacement could be sent from Rome, the high priest arrogated the power to have James, a leader in the Christian church, executed. Once the new Roman official arrived, he removed that high priest from office for this serious breach.

Fear of the Crowd

25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are
standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the
captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not
use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. (Acts
5:25-26)

Fear of Public Opinion, possible insurrection

Peter healed a lame man in the temple courts in front of a crowd. This made him popular.

13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the
man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing
they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin
and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these
men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have
performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this
thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them
to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” (Acts 4:13-17)

Futility of Legal Measures and God's Protection

When the authorities did arrest the Apostles, on occasion God would send angels to set them free.

17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of
the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They
arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during
the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and
brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and
tell the people all about this new life.”

If God's holy angels told the Apostles to stand in the temple courts, they were well protected.


What, specifically, if anything, is heterodox about LDS eschatology? I know the Christology and soteriology of Mormonism is heterodox.  But would Mormons disagree with any of the following:

the inspiration of scripture (Book of Mormon notwithstanding)
the substitutionary atonement of Christ (his divinity notwithstanding)
the literal bodily return of Christ
the literal resurrection of all men
the future judgment of all men
eternal existence in heaven and hell

I am aware of the purgatory-like doctrine of hell which is not eternal and of the "lake of fire" where Satan et al (but not humans) will go, but this seems the only point on which the LDS doctrine doesn't conform with traditional pre- or post-mil eschatology (even if it does mix it all up).

I apologize that this answer is missing sufficient links to scripture or church leaders.  It's late and I'm out of time.  However, nearly all of these subjects have been treated in detail here on Christianity.SE.  If anyone happens to know of an appropriate answer that can be linked to the statements below, please do.  Thanks!

The inspiration of scripture (Book of Mormon notwithstanding)

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the inspiration of scripture.
What's heterodox? We do not believe that scripture is perfect.  "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" (Article of Faith #8).  This is one of the reasons we need (and believe we have) living prophets today.

The substitutionary atonement of Christ (his divinity notwithstanding)

This is complex because there are multiple substitutionary atonment theories.  The closest match to the LDS belief is the satisfaction and penal substitution theory.  However, because there are multiple theories and no consensus1 I think it's difficult to claim anybody is "orthodox."  (See Article of Faith #3.)

The literal bodily return of Christ

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the literal bodily return of Jesus Christ.
What's heterodox? Our view of the last days and Second Coming are very different from most Christian churches.  For example, we believe in what other denominations call "the rapture" but we believe it will happen at the moment of Christ's descent.  We do not believe in a "tribulation" as other denominations define it.  Describing the differences would be a very long response.

The literal resurrection of all men

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in a literal resurrection.  (2 Nephi 9:22-23.)
What's heterodox? You know, there may not be anything heterodox about this belief.

The future judgment of all men

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the future judgement of all people.  (Article of Faith #2.)
What's heterodox? Many denominations appear to believe that the grace of Jesus Christ trumps justice and judgement.  I have a copy of a pamphlet handed out in an airport 30 years ago by one small sect that actually taught that if we take any action to repent we are denying the grace of Christ and will be judged unworthy of His grace.  We specifically believe that the grace of Christ is a gift only after all that we can do — but if we do little or nothing, little or nothing is all the reward we will receive.  We take Christ literally when He commands us to obey.  A specific example is some denominations believing that baptism isn't a saving ordinance.  For example, we take Jesus at His word when He taught in Mark 16:16 that those who both believe and are baptized will be saved, making baptism (from the LDS perspective) a saving ordinance.

Eternal existence in heaven and hell

What's orthodox? We absolutely believe in the eternal nature of heaven and hell.
What's heterodox? We believe that what most Christian religions call "heaven and hell" are the pre-judgement holding area (which we call the "spirit world") where the spirits of just people made perfect reside in "heaven" (spirit paradise) and everyone else is in "hell" (spirit prison).  Because judgement removes people from this condition and places them in what we see as a much more complex post-judgement view (the Celestial kingdom, the Terrestrial kingdom, the Telestial kingdom, and Outer Darkness where Lucifer,2 his followers, and the sons/daughters of perdition will be).  Therfore, you can look at the distinction between "heaven" and "hell" in either of two ways: (a) the presence of the Father is heaven (celestial kingdom, everything else is hell) or (b) Any reward of glory is heaven (outer darkness is hell, everything else is heaven).  Why the two perceptions are both valid is, once again, a lengthy discussion.

1 Unless you consider the sheer size of Catholocism being a represetative consensus.  However, despite having a clear majority in terms of membership (think "U.S. House of Representatives"), I suspect most denominations would prefer to have their voices heard (think "U.S. Senate").

2 We believe Lucifer, his followers, and all angels are human beings, the children of our Heavenly Father.  Lucifer and his followers will be denied physical bodies on Earth and therefore cannot be resurrected.  Angels are either the children of the Father who have not yet been born to the Earth or resurrected beings.


Connection between the Jesus Prayer and chanting "Jesus!" during worship? According to Wikipedia:

  The Jesus' Prayer (Greek: Η Προσευχή του Ιησού, i prosefchí tou iisoú; Syriac: ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܝܫܘܥ , Amharic, Geez and Tigrinya: እግዚኦ መሐረነ ክርስቶስ,Slotho d-Yeshu' , ) or "The Prayer" (Greek: Η Ευχή, i efchí̱ – literally "The Wish") is a short formulaic prayer esteemed and advocated especially within the Eastern churches:

    Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.[1]

/.../

  Similarly to the flexibility of the practice of the Jesus' Prayer, there is no imposed standardization of its form. The prayer can be from as short as "Lord, have mercy" (Kyrie eleison), "Have mercy on me" ("Have mercy upon us"), or even "Jesus", to its longer most common form.

Now, in another and younger evangelical tradition "Jesus" or "Lord" or "Save me" etc are often repetitively sung, chanted or prayed as part of worship music, worship meetings or prayers.

This is most likely a very wild guess, but since these two practices seem awkwardly similar to one another, is there any known historic connection between these two practices/traditions which could signify that such forms of evangelical worship were culturally influenced by the Jesus prayer? Certainly it's the Holy Spirit at work (for whatever good reason; unifying the church? ), but I'd still like to know whether there are any culturally notable connections.

The Jesus Prayer referenced comes from believers within a structured liturgical tradition - principally the Eastern Orthodox Church - so there would be no connection with the use of the prayer in the sort of spontaneous manner that you suggest in worship.  There is no use of the prayer in any of the eastern rite liturgies, for example (e.g. Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom). Although the prayer is said aloud communally within this tradition on rare occasions (e.g. there is one particular monastery in England that performs it in this manner), it is generally reserved for private, contemplative and usually silent prayer.


What did Jesus mean when He said “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” Please note, I am not asking about the meaning of “I will draw all men to myself”.  This has been answered in another question here: What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32?

The New International Version renders it as, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself.”  Then, in verse 33 it says this was to show what kind of death He was going to die.  Does Jesus mean when he is lifted up to heaven after his resurrection?  And what does it have to do with the manner of Jesus’ death?

What is the meaning, significance and relevance behind Jesus being “lifted up from the earth”?

I seek answers from Trinitarian Protestants.

Surely it means simply when I am lifted up on the cross of crucifixion.

In the same Gospel of John he is quoted as saying two things about being "lifted up":

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3:14)

and

  When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he..  (John 8:28)

Here he was speaking to the Pharisees (John 8:13) later in the conversation they are called "the Jews" (John 8:22).  The "lifting up", then, is something that his enemies will do to him, so it cannot be referring to either his  resurrection or his ascension.

Jesus keep me near the cross:

There a precious fountain,

Free to all, a healing stream,

Flows from Calvary's mountain.

.

In the cross, in the cross,

Be my glory ever,

Till my raptured soul shall find

Rest beyond the river.


Can fallen angels be redeemed? We know from the Bible that devils are fallen angels, once created good but who chose to join Lucifer's rebel uprising and consequently lost their place in heaven.

Can those angels ever be saved? Can the angels that remain choose to change sides? Is there such a thing as salvation for an angel?

Based on the following scriptures, I would say the answer is no.

  Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left
  their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
  darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

  MATTHEW 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
  devil and his angels:


Are there any bundles of subsets of the New Testament that are common? In Christianity you have the idea of the "Old Testament". In Judaism, this is broken down into smaller (and larger) chunks. You can find it in the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament. You can find it in the Tanach, the source of the Old Testament in Christianity. This is divided into the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. Then there are the Five scrolls (Hamesh Megillot). I'm not sure how the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into all this....

But I'm wondering if there are any formal/standard ways of subdividing the New Testament in a similar way. Perhaps there are the Gospels (the 4 first books). Does that count as a standard subset? Then what else for the remainder of the New Testament?

Wikipedia divides it up like this:

The Gospels
Apostolic History
Catholic Epistles
Pauline Epistles
Apocalypse

But that sounds more like categorization than a collection of books like how the Tanach does it. I am trying to imagine, "if I saw a book named 'X', would I know it was part of the New Testament?". So if I saw a book named "The Gospels", I would actually think this is the 4 gospels starting the New Testament. Maybe that's just me? Then if I saw "The Catholic Epistles", I wouldn't think that is a subset of the NT, but maybe it would suffice? Is there a better way?

Are there any bundles of subsets of the New Testament that are common?

Catholic Bibles are divided into 5 subsets for the New Testament.

The Catholic New Testament is composed  27 books of the New Testament.

  The Catholic Bible is composed of the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament.

  Old Testament

  Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees
  Wisdom books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach
  Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

  Of these books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, are the deuterocanonical books of the bible.

  New Testament

  The Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
  Historical book: Acts
  Pauline Epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
  General Epistles: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
  Revelation


According to Catholicism, why did Jesus address inanimate objects? In Mark 4:35–39 (RSVCE), we read:

  On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.”  And leaving the crowd, they took him with them, just as he was, in the boat. And other boats were with him.  And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.  But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?”  And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

One wonders why Jesus spoke to inanimate objects like the wind and the sea. Did Mark want to tell his readers that natural forces also have the power of perception and cognition? What does the Catholic Church teach on this topic?

He wanted to show His control over the universe. See St. Thomas Aquinas's discussion on God's divine governance in his Summa Theologica (I q. 103).

St. Bede says this about the mystical sense:

  Rising up, He threatened the wind, because when He had triumphed in His resurrection, He prostrated the pride of the devil. He ordered the sea to be still, that is, in rising again, He cast down the rage of the Jews. The disciples are blamed, because after His resurrection, He chided them for their unbelief. And we also when being marked with the sign of the Lord's cross, we determine to quit the world, embark in the ship with Christ; we attempt to cross the sea; but, He goes to sleep, as we are sailing amidst the roaring of the waters, when amidst the strivings of our virtues, or amidst the attacks of evil spirits, of wicked men, or of our own thoughts, the flame of our love grows cold. Amongst storms of this sort, let us diligently strive to awake Him; He will soon restrain the tempest, pour down peace upon us, give us the harbour of salvation.


Where did viruses come from, according to Young Earth Creationists? Viruses are quite nasty germs. Whereas bacteria serve many useful purposes and we need them, I wonder what the purpose of viruses in God's creation could be. Does Young Earth Creationism address what role viruses have in the world?

I'd like to hear the YEC view on the following points:

Where did viruses come from?
What is their purpose?
Were viruses created? If so, by whom?
Does the Bible say anything applicable?

If the Old Earth Creationist view is significantly different, please notify me. I expect them to be similar, but might ask another question focused on OEC if relevant.

The notion that all viruses are bad is worth challenging. In 2008 paediatrician Dr Lawrence D. Rosen, MD published a blog post entitled Viruses and Health: Not all bad? which looked at two interesting cases and concluded:

  In both of these cases, it appears that viral infections may indeed
  confer some sort of protection or health benefit to the host.  Is this
  true in all circumstances?  Of course not.  But the converse - that
  these viruses are always a health threat in all people, is equally
  unlikely.  It behooves us to be very, very careful when considering
  eradicating viruses from our bodies, particularly when the cure is
  potentially worse than the infection.

In addition, cancer research scientists are now looking at using (modified) viruses in order to combat this disease.ScienceDirect | Montana State University

Viruses are not mentioned in the Bible and whether they are technically living things is subject to continued discussion. In terms of their origin, the regressive and cellular hypotheses therefore don't entirely conflict with the Christian view; however the predominant view among creationists is that viruses are part of the original creation. Along with the rest of Creation, viruses were subject to The Fall, corrupting their original intended nature. The examples above show that viruses may be (or may have been) beneficial to health. In addition there is a theory called the Horizontal Gene Transfer (or horizontal gene flow) which may explain to some degree a purpose for viruses:

  that genes picked up from somewhere in the environment rather than
  inherited from parents may help to explain rapid adaptation and the
  interesting pattern of DNA in animals.Answers in Genesis: Why Did God Make Viruses?


What are Anglicans' opinion about Muhammad (founder of Islam)? I heard from many Christians that they believe that Muhammad is a false prophet. Some other Christians believe he is prophet from God. What do Anglicans believe about Islam especially its founder? (EDIT - Here is viewpoints of Catholics, but I would like to know about Anglicans' opinions as well)

Thank you.

Anglican would, for the most part, not disagree with the assessment given by the Catholic church in the linked questions. Islamic teaching - specifically the teaching of Muhammed in the Quran - is explicitly and intentionally contradictory with Christian teaching and Christian scriptures. It would be hard to make the case of Muhammad being a 'true prophet of God', just as it would be very hard for a Muslim to admit that the New Testament was truly the inspired word of God.

A number of Anglicans (like other denominations) regard the historic Christian teachings as as 'of their time' rather than binding historical truths. For them it would be more plausible to accept that Muhammad was a prophet to the same extent as other Jewish prophets. However their number is rather small as a fraction of Christians in general. Of interest might be the writings of Kenneth Cragg, former Anglican Archbishop of Egypt, who has written interesting books on Muhammad from the Anglican (specifically Liberal Anglican) point of view.


How do Bible scholars view the accuracy and reliability of the Aleppo Codex? Background information: Circa A.D. 930, sages and scribes completed the writing of the Aleppo Codex, the first definitive Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. From Tiberias, the codex was taken to Jerusalem. But Crusaders laid waste to the city in 1099, slaughtering its inhabitants and taking the codex.  The Aleppo Codex, the oldest Hebrew Bible in existence today, is so named because it was housed for half a millennium in Aleppo, Syria.  Between the 1947 riots in Aleppo, Syria, and the codex’s arrival in Israel in 1957, almost 200 pages of the Aleppo Codex went missing.

I have been asked specifically about the Aleppo Codex and if it is considered to be reliable, and find myself completely out of my depth. Is there any information on the Aleppo Codes to be found on the Christianity Stack Exchange?  I do not yet know how to navigate my way around this web site and could do with some help.

The Aleppo Codex is a bound manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, written by scribes called Masoretes in Tiberias, Israel, around 930 C.E.  They surfaced in Aleppo, Syria, sometime in the second half of the 15th century; preserved nearly intact in a synagogue for centuries, until the 20th century.

The Aleppo Codex belongs to a large “family” of Masoretic manuscripts (MS), which contain vocalization, cantillation marks, and Masoretic annotations.  One of the best known manuscripts closely related to the Aleppo Codex is MS Leningrad.  Some editions of the Bible are based on MS Leningrad, the best known being the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica.

The Aleppo Codex is considered to be the most authoritative copy of the Hebrew Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls—which are a thousand years older than the Aleppo Codex and which contain all of Isaiah and some of the Psalms from the Hebrew Bible –  lack vowels.  The Aleppo Codex features both vowel markings and marginal notations.

Three important editions of the Bible based on the Aleppo Codex, are: 1) The Breuer edition.  2) The edition of the Hebrew University Bible Project.  3) The Keter edition of Miqraot Gedolot, published by Bar-Ilan University Press.
Significantly, both the New International Version and the New Living Translation of the Bible base their Old Testament translations on the Masoretic Text of the Biblia Hebraica.

I assume that since the Masoretic Text and the Biblia Hebraica are of significance to modern English translations of the Bible, and since the Aleppo Codex is considered by many to be the most authoritative copy of the Hebrew Bible, being part of the family of Masoretic MS, then the Aleppo Codex is viewed as important and trustworthy.

Some controversy surrounds the history of the Aleppo Codex and some parts of the Hebrew text are still missing, but the pedigree of the Aleppo Codex seems to be accepted by reputable Bible scholars.  I hasten to add, however, that this is only what I have culled from the articles in the links below. Please study them for yourself and form your own conclusions.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/the-aleppo-codex/

http://www.aleppocodex.org/links/7.html


Where is the story that James (the 'brother') shared one-half of his inheritance with Jesus? The story is, I believe, apocryphal; but the "brothers of Jesus, sons of Joseph" rejected sharing their inheritance with Jesus and James, a follower of Jesus and leader of the early church (per Acts), stated that he (James) would share one-half of his inheritance with Jesus.

This story is preserved in Menologion of the Holy Tradition,

  When Joseph, after returning from Egypt, began to divide his land among his children born of his first wife,1 he also wished to give a portion to the Lord Jesus Who was born supernaturally and without corruption of the all-pure Virgin Mary, and Who was then but a little child. But three of Joseph's sons did not wish Christ to have a share, as He was born of another mother; only the fourth son, St. James, accepted Him as co-owner of his own portion, and hence was afterwards called the "Brother of God."

  St. Dimitri of Rostov, Menologion, trans. Isaac E. Lambertsen, The Lives of the Holy Apostles, Holy Apostles Convent: Buena Vista, CO, 1988, p. 223-4.

1 "Salome, daughter of Haggai, the son of Barachiah, a brother of Saint Zacharias, the father of the holy Prophet John the Forerunner of the Lord." St. Dimitri of Rostov, Menologion, 223.


According to Catholicism, did Jesus whip the people selling cattle in the Temple? We read at Jn 2:13-15 (KJV)

And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables

But in some other versions we find a slightly different translation, e.g. in NRSVCE:

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.   In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.   Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

While KJV states that Jesus directed his whip on people and cattle alike, NRSVCE, for instance, gives the impression that he used the whip to drive the cattle out.  And nobody  questioned Jesus' authority to use force in the Temple,  implying that in case he had whipped the people, they would have definitely revolted. But, many
pictures depicting the event show Jesus directing his whip on the sellers of cattle rather than on the cattle.My question therefore is: Did Jesus in fact whip the people selling cattle in the Temple? How  do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the event?

John 2:15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge [whip] of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.

Note that Matthew 21:12 and the other Synoptics don't mention the scourge/whip (σχοινίον).
St. Augustine (as quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea on Jn. 2) says He literally scourged/whipped them:

Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge (flagellum) of small cords, and then He scourged (flagellavit) those who were carrying on the merchandise in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin.

St. Cyril's Commentary on John 2 compares the Jews' folly to slaves deserving corporal punishment:

Reasonably is the Saviour indignant at the folly of the Jews. […] He shows His emotion not by mere words, but with stripes and a scourge thrusts He them forth of the sacred precincts, justly devising for them the punishment befitting slaves; for they would not receive the Son Who through faith maketh free.


Which Prison Epistles are considered to have been written from Rome? I recognise the modern challenges of traditional/specific dating of the NT books; and that this may suggest various answers. Are there any letters which are reliably recognised as having been written while under arrest in Rome?

Information taken from the New International Version Study Bible 2000 Edition Introductory Notes:

  Ephesians: Paul may have written it about the same time as Colossians, c. A.D. 60, while he was in prison in Rome.

  Philippians: It is evident that Paul wrote the letter from prison...  The best evidence, however favours Rome as the place of origin, and the date as c. 61.  This fits well with the account of Paul’s house arrest in Acts 28:14-31.  When he wrote Philippians, he was not in the Mamertine dungeon as he was when he wrote 2 Timothy.  He was in his own rented house, where for two years he was free to impart the gospel to all who came to him.

  Colossians: Instead, it is to be dated during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, where he spent at least two years under house arrest (see Acts 28:16-31).  Some have argued that Paul wrote Colossians from Ephesus or Caesarea, but most of the evidence favours Rome as the place where Paul penned all the Prison Letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon).  Colossians should be dated c. A.D. 60, in the same year as Ephesians and Philemon.

  Philemon: Paul wrote this short letter probably at the same time as Colossians (c. A.D. 60).

  2 Timothy: After Paul’s release from prison in Rome in A.D. 62/63 (Acts 28)and after his fourth missionary journey, during which he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul was again imprisoned under Emperor Nero c. 66-67. It was during this time that he wrote 2 Timothy.  In contrast to his first imprisonment, when he lived in a rented house (Acts 28:30), he now languished in a cold dungeon (2 Timothy 4:13), chained like a common criminal (2 Timothy 1:16; 2:9).  His friends even had a hard time finding out where he was being kept (2 Timothy 1:17).  Paul knew that his work was done and his life was nearly at an end (2 Timothy 4:6-8).


The Messiah and Joseph's genealogy One of the requisite of the Messiah is to be from the line of David (Lk 3:23-38 and Mt 1:1-17) but we know that Joseph wasn't Jesus's biological father. Thoughts on this? Thanks.

The Messiah and Joseph's genealogy?

Both Matthew and Luke record the genealogy of Yeshua from different perspectives. Matthew's gospel gives us the legal lineage of Yeshua, while Luke gives us the bloodline.

Matthew's focus is on Yeshua the son of David, the son of Abraham; thus the lineage of Yeshua in Matthew's gospel runs forward from Abraham, through DAVID, down the line of the kings of Israel (Solomon, Rohoboam, Abijah, etc.) down to Joseph who is of the royal lineage of David.

Luke's gospel, however, begins with Yeshua and moves backward to the man thought to be his father, Joseph, then to Heli (Mary's father), back through the bloodline to one Nathan, who also was a son of David, but was never the king. This genealogy continues all the way back to Adam.

Though this Nathan was of the royal household (also a son of DAVID), he was not of the royal line of those who sat as king over Israel. As it turns out, in the royal lineage, the line of kings through DAVID was cursed by God owing to the sinfulness of one Jehoiachin (a.k.a., Jeconiah, a.k.a., Coniah). God swore that, after Jehoiachin, there would be no offspring of that line to sit upon the throne of DAVID (see Jeremiah 22:24-30).

Even though the royal lineage of DAVID was now permanently barred from sitting on the throne of David to rule over Israel, there is no mention of the bloodline itself being barred from such service. Enter Nathan...

Nathan was one of four (4) sons born of Bathsheba in Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 3:5). Precious little is known of Nathan other than those two blurbs in the OT and Luke's account of the genealogy of Yeshua. But one thing is for certain, Nathan never sat upon the throne of DAVID, thus, he was never the king, thus he is unaffected by the kingly line being cursed. If you are not the king, you are a servant. You may be a high-ranking servant, but a servant nonetheless.

Nathan provides the perfect nexus between the prophecies that Messiah will sit upon the throne of DAVID, and that default of Jehoiachin. While Satan had worked so tirelessly to bring the line of DAVID to an end, God had, from the beginning, prepared a flanking maneuver whereby Messiah would come, strong and hard, through the line of DAVID, via Nathan, the son of DAVID and Bathsheba.

I find it interesting (simply as a side note) that Messiah is often referred to as God's servant. This, too, is in perfect keeping with Yeshua coming through DAVID via Nathan (a servant, not the king). Yeshua's time of being a servant is fulfilled. When next he appears on the scene, it will be as King of kings, and Lord of lords; the Sovereign of the universe.


What is the scope of gambling prohibitions for JW's? I know that gambling is forbidden for a Jehovah's Witness. Would this include a phone in competition on the radio, for example to win money or a holiday?

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

We don't gamble because:

We avoid greediness.
We don't want to put our faith in the "god of Good Luck" (Isaiah 65:11).
We don't want to take someone else's money in exchange for nothing.

This does not include a radio contest because the other radio listeners in the contest aren't losing any money if they don't win the prize.

With regard to your follow up question, "would a football team of Jehovah's Witnesses be able to participate in the coin toss to decide which end they started from?" - Yes they would as long as they weren't doing something similar to what is mentioned in this paragraph taken from a 2011 Watchtower: "For example, auspicious numbers are chosen for lottery tickets; the uttering of certain words is forbidden among superstitious mah-jongg players; and a puff of air is blown over dice before they are thrown. Why? Gamblers often believe that luck will, or at least might, influence the outcome." (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011167)

Here is an article that gives more details on how far to take the prohibition:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002808


Differences between the "son of man" and "son of God" In the holy gospel, I see that Jesus is called as"son of man" in some occasions, whereas "son of God" in some other. By normal thinking it could be concluded that both are statements of contradictions. What would have been really  meant by these names? and How do they target the same man, though it seems different in meaning?

Jesus is the Son of God. He is often called the son of man to tell people that He is the coming messiah that everyone needs. How can calling Him the son of man tell people he's the messiah? Enter  Daniel 7:13:

  “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

This was Old Testament prophecy from the prophet Daniel where he saw Jesus Christ, who came from the clouds of heaven like a "son of man".

People knew the Old Testament pretty well at the time, so when Jesus was referenced as the son of man, people immediately recollected Daniel's vision and connected the dots, placing Jesus as the messiah. Pretty cool, eh?


What is the name of this disciple of Jesus in the English language? What is the English name of St. Pathrose who is a disciple of Jesus in the Malayalam liturgy?

According to the chart on this page, the English equivalent of the Malayam "Pathrose" is "Peter".


How are spirits born? I'm interested primarily in LDS doctrine, but I welcome the perspective of other sects as well, as I believe that all of Christianity shares the same roots. Please specify from what denomination your view is from in your answer.

In reference to the vision of Mosiah Hancock, how are spirits born or created? We know from the scriptures that:

  4 ... Have ye not read, that he which
  made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4; KJV)

and,

  11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the
  woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

  12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the
  woman; but all things of God. (Corinthians 11:11-12; KJV)

There are more scriptures that reference how man and woman are twain without each other, and how united they are one flesh.

We know it is impossible to be exalted without being married and sealed, so there is obvious significance to the sexes being reunited.

Mosiah Hancock mentions in his vision that before the creation of Earth, all the children of God were arranged in pairs, a male with a female, and that each pair seemed to have been created mates.

I'm looking for further knowledge and insight into this. Considering we are created in His LIKENESS and image, I'm left to assume that all spirits are born unto heavenly parents like children on earth are born unto mortal parents. But if that is so, then why are they born with spirit bodies, and not bodies of flesh and bone like unto their resurrected parents? Are all spirits born as male-female twins? Are they actually born, or are they created? If created then how are they created?

Update, Aug 12th 2014

I was reading this article: “In the Beginning”: A Latter-day Perspective, and stumbled onto this:

  “‘And I, God, blessed them [Man here is always in the plural. It was
  plural from the beginning.] and said unto them: Be fruitful, and
  multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion
  over [it].’ (Moses 2:27–28.)

  “And the scripture says,

  “‘And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the
  beginning: Let us make man [not a separate man, but a complete man,
  which is husband and wife] in our image, after our likeness; and it
  was so’ (Moses 2:26).

The part I found most interesting was, "The likeness of God is a complete man, being husband and wife." This seems to be inline with Mosiah Hancock's vision, and spirits being created mates.

First, we don't even know what a spirit is, really. Is is heavy? Is it strong? Is it colorful? Can two spirits give each other a high five?

The collective understanding of (LDS) scripture is essentially:

Everyone had/was a spirit from before they were born. (Jeremiah 1:5)
It has the form of a person.

  All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes

  Doctrine and Covenants 131:7

And that's it.

It's hard to even ask intelligent questions, let alone answer them, about something that is so little understood.

Joseph Smith talked about the creation of spirits in the King Folliet discourse:

  I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man...It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead — namely, the soul — the mind of man — the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect...

  I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end.

One directional eternity doesn't make sense, at least to Joesph Smith. Anything that is fundamentally eternal is eternal in any direction.

And Doctrine and Convenants 93:29:

  Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Of course, God is said to be the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9, D&C 76:24). How does that fit into the picture?

In the same sermon, Joseph Smith also said:

  You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, "Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

It is the same way with the "intelligence" or "spirit" mentioned. It is eternal (in both directions), and was organized by the Father and Creator.

Now whether this is literally the Casper-like spirit normally thought of or something more principal elemental that was organized, or created, into a full fledged spirit we don't really know...because we don't really know what a spirit is.


What do people fear in Jude 1:23? I know fear can mean multiple things. But what I'm getting out of Jude 1:23 is that people saved others by fearing something. Do they fear Satan? Or do they fear God? The whole time, I was assuming fear was a bad thing.

120 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
[KJV] my emphasis

I think Jude is encouraging his readers to fear the temptation of the flesh, which explains the following statement "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.". Look at how it's phrased in the New Living Translation:

  Jude 1:20-23 NLT But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love. And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.

Instead of the fear, it's saying the word caution. This is similar to the passage in Galatians 6:

  Galatians 6:1 NLT Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.

It looks like it is a cautionary fear.


What sins can be absolved only by a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church? My understanding is that only the Pope can give absolution to a priest who reveals the content of someone's confession.

What sins can be absolved only by a bishop or by a priest the bishop specifically appoints?

A priest can absolve any sin; however, a priest cannot absolve from reserved excommunications unless he is given permission to do so by his bishop (cf. the rite for absolving from excommunication).

Some sins (e.g., abortion; cf. Ken Graham's answer above) also incur an excommunication that is reserved to the local ordinary (bishop), and other excommunications (e.g., for illicitly consecrating bishops, as happened in China) are even reserved to the Apostolic See (pope). Thus, while a priest could absolve the sin, a bishop or pope might be necessary to absolve the excommunication (i.e., reincorporate the penitent back as a member of the Church).


Why doesn't the Catholic Church give indulgences to everybody, regardless of their works? In learning about indulgences, I started to wonder why a work was necessary for the giving of an indulgence. In looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it appears to me that a work is necessary because the Church chooses to make it necessary (italics mine):

  Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church

  1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

I'm not really sure that I understand this view. Of course, these works of devotion, penance, and charity are good things, but it seems like it would be more compassionate to give out indulgences to everybody so that they do not suffer from punishment for their sins in purgatory, and find other ways to encourage people to do these works. Indeed, there seems to be a similar argument in Thesis 82 in Martin Luther's 95 Theses:

  Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?

I realize that this thesis was addressing the idea that "when the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" and and other abuses of indulgences. But the sentiment seems to match the question I am asking: wouldn't it be more merciful if the pope were to choose to grant indulgences to everybody, thus reducing the suffering of those in purgatory (or empty it entirely) regardless of their works?

The Council of Trent, which condemned Luther's errors and heresies, wrote this on 4 December 1563, in its 25th session, "Decree Concerning Indulgences" (see my emphasized parts):

  Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power delivered unto her of God, the sacred holy Synod teaches and enjoins that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, it desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honorable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,—whence, a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,—be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatsoever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they can not conveniently be specially prohibited, it commands all bishops diligently to collect, each in his own Church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that thus the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

Granting indulgences "by excessive facility" makes "ecclesiastical discipline be enervated" (enervetur: weak, unmanly, effeminate). The Church, however, wants strong soldiers for her exultation and God's glory. Her supreme law is the salvation of souls, not the confirmation of the faithful in their sins.


Who first described Pentecost as a reversal of Babel? In Spiritual Maturity, J. Oswald Sanders describes Pentecost as a reversal of Babel. An online search shows this to be a link made by others, and in a related thesis on the topic, Paul J. Pastor goes as far as to claim:

  Pentecost as a reversal of Babel has been widely seen by exegetes since the early days of the Church.

Who are some of these early exegetes?

Two fourth-century fathers clearly make this connection. First, Cyril of Jerusalem:

  The multitude of the hearers was confounded;—it was a second confusion, in the room of that first evil one at Babylon.  For in that confusion of tongues there was division of purpose, because their thought was at enmity with God; but here minds were restored and united, because the object of interest was godly. (Lecture 17.17)

Gregory of Nazianzus, during his discussion of Pentecost, contrasts Babel:

  But as the old Confusion of tongues was laudable, when men who were of one language in wickedness and impiety, even as some now venture to be, were building the Tower; for by the confusion of their language the unity of their intention was broken up, and their undertaking destroyed; so much more worthy of praise is the present miraculous one [i.e., the tongues at Pentecost]. For being poured from One Spirit upon many men, it brings them again into harmony. (Oration 41)

Augustine, shortly thereafter, clearly makes the connection in his exposition of Psalm 55:9:

  Recollect that tower of proud men made after the deluge [...] they builded up a lofty tower, and the Lord divided the tongues of them. [...] Through proud men, divided were the tongues; through humble Apostles, united were the tongues. Spirit of pride dispersed tongues, Spirit Holy united tongues. For when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, with the tongues of all men they spake, by all men they were understood: tongues dispersed, into one were united. (Psalm LV.10)

A number of later fathers continued this understanding.  In the sixth century, we have Pseudo-Fulgentius (quoted in Henri de Lubac, Catholicism) and, quoted here, Arator:

  Then there was a confusion of tongues, though they were of the same race; now there is one tongue though the peoples are many. (Quoted in Hiller, Arator on the Acts)

And in the early 8th century, Bede refers to the Church speaking various languages at Pentecost:

  How the arrogance of Babylon scattered the unity of languages, [and] the humbleness of the Church gathers it back. (Commentary on Acts)


When is it too late to ask for salvation? What does the Bible say about when is it too late to ask for salvation?

There are many death bed conversion stories. One of the most momentous conversions in Western history was that of Constantine I, Roman Emperor and later proclaimed a Christian Saint.

Is there any supporting evidence that we can or cannot obtain salvation after death?

When is it too late to ask for salvation?

It is never too late, as long as a person is alive.  The thief on the cross is a good example of this in the Bible.

What about obtaining salvation after death?

Some Christians believe that everyone will be given a second chance to believe after death.  Usually the proof text used is:

  1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV)
  18  For Christ also suffered once  for sins,  the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.  He was put to death in the body  but made alive in the Spirit.  19  After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits  — 20  to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently  in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all,  were saved  through water,

To extract from this passage a doctrine that everyone will have a chance to be saved after death is quite a drastic stretch - especially since it is found nowhere else in Scripture.  While I'm not sure about the meaning of this passage, it simply does not support that:

Anyone besides the people described heard or will hear Jesus's proclamation.
Anyone that heard Jesus's proclamation was given a chance for salvation.

These claims, which are necessary for the doctrine of obtaining salvation after death, are not supported by this passage.

Is it better to wait as long as possible to be saved?

No.  It sounds like you may have the notion that when you are saved, you are saved from your past sin, but not your future sin.  If this were true, then no one would be saved - no matter how "good" someone becomes after they become saved, no one is able to meet God's perfect standards.

When we are saved, God will conform us to the likeness of Christ through sanctification, but understand that no one undergoes this process perfectly.  On the day of redemption, we will be justified - not because of our works, or our ability to keep from "screwing up", but because of our inclusion in Christ, and his sacrifice for us.


Why did the RLDS change its name to the Community of Christ? There are a lot of people under the impression that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints changed it's name to the  Community of Christ in order to distance it's identity from the LDS church so they could be accepted into the World Council of Churches.

For what reason did the RLDS change it's name?

That is indeed the reason.  They sought and received guidance and instruction from the Saint Paul School of Theology and one of the first things to be changed was the name of the church (in 2001).

Source: Mulliken, Kenneth Robert (2011). Historical Amnesia: Corporate Identity and Collective Memory in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1915–2001 (Ph.D. thesis). University of Missouri-Kansas City

Acceptance into the larger Christian community was eagerly sought in 2002 but rebuffed by the World Council of Churches in 2004 until finally granted in 2010 by the National Coincil of Churches.


In what sense was Jesus's death a sacrifice? Why do we say that Jesus sacrificed himself for us? I don't mean to offend but I seriously don't understand how it would be a sacrifice.

When Jesus died didn't he end up in heaven? To me, a sacrifice would mean to act in the best interest of others when you know doing so could hurt you. For example, if Jesus knew that he would end up in Hell for all eternity if he chose to die for our sins, I would consider that a sacrifice. In the case of Jesus, was it really bad for him to end up in heaven? Why is it considered a sacrifice?

The sacrifice of Jesus was many things.

It was a personal atonement for our sins, bringing salvation. But it is much, much more than only that.

It was a propitiation. God's wrath was/is hot upon the human race, his sacrifice was a shedding of innocent blood to put away that wrath. It was for us, but it was directed toward God. God required innocent blood, Jesus paid the debt...which allowed God legal right (his own standard) to forgive any who would turn to him.

In addition, the term sacrifice, points back to all the OT stuff which required a sacrifice to put away sin. He was the Lamb of God which took on the sin of the world. Notice, he is God's Lamb, not ours. God set his Lamb aside for death, he was accursed (set aside for judgment without hope of redemption) and sacrificed (blood shed for God to see...he was "put forth") in order for God to make his own way to interact with his sinful creation.

Also, the blood which was shed, not only allowed salvation to occur, but it is the same blood that God continues to view us through. Jesus is our high priest interceding for us even now and pointing to the blood, "your just requirements have been fulfilled...I paid if for them."

The sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice however. Not only in the pain and suffering of it all, but by virtue of the fact that he was GOD in the flesh...Immanuel. He had been surrounded and bathed in a pool of glory from eternity past, but in his coming here to die in our place, he left all of that, and became a high priest so he could understand what we go through (he became a perfect high priest). But the coming alone was a sacrifice. To be in a body of sinful flesh was a sacrifice. To live a life among sinners was a sacrifice. To be surrounded by people who didn't even care about him was a sacrifice. For the creator of heaven and earth, Jehovah God to be lonely, misunderstood, called a bastard, mocked, spit on, argued with, rejected, and crucified was truly a sacrifice. He was tempted in all points, just like we are. He sacrificed more than we will ever know. One drop of his blood was worth more than all of our blood put together. It was perfect blood, sinless blood.

To reduce the sacrifice to hell or heaven is reducing his will to nothing. True he did not end up in hell for eternity, but his entire existence on this planet was a sacrifice and it was his will to suffer for us.


Did the Devil pre-exist human beings? We see at Genesis 3:1

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."

We go on to read at Gen 3: 14:

"The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures....".

We come across the first mention of the name of Devil in the Old Testament at Wisdom 2:24 :

" but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it."

One wonders whether the Devil pre-existed human beings, or whether he was  a creation of the sins of mankind. What do the scripture-based teachings  of Catholic Church say about the origin and development of Devil .

Job tells of the time when the universe was created, and the angels sang and praised his work:

  Tell me, since thou art so wise, was it thou or I designed earth’s
  plan, measuring it out with the line? How came its base to stand so
  firm; who laid its corner-stone? To me, that day, all the morning
  stars sang together, all the powers of heaven uttered their joyful
  praise. -- New Advent -- Job 38:5-7

These spirit beings (stars are symbolic of angels) obviously preceded the creation of mankind.

The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a long article about the Devil, giving great detail about Satan and his fallen angels.  In particular:

  ... the words of St. Jude: "And the angels who kept not their
  principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under
  darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day"
  (Jude 1:6; cf. 2 Peter 2:4).

  In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job
  4:18: "In his angels he found wickedness". But to this must be added
  the two classic texts in the prophets:

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the
  morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the
  nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I
  will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the
  mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend
  above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet
  thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. (Isaiah
  14:12-15)

  This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of
  Babylon, but both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators
  agree in understanding it as applying with deeper significance to the
  fall of the rebel angel. And the older commentators generally consider
  that this interpretation is confirmed by the words of Our Lord to his
  disciples: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven" (Luke
  10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples,
  who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the
  fall of Lucifer.

  ...

  The parallel prophetic passage is Ezekiel's lamentation upon the king
  of Tyre:

  You were the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in
  beauty. You were in the pleasures of the paradise of God; every
  precious stone was thy covering; the sardius, the topaz, and the
  jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and
  the carbuncle, and the emerald; gold the work of your beauty: and your
  pipes were prepared in the day that you were created. You a cherub
  stretched out, and protecting, and I set you in the holy mountain of
  God, you have walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were
  perfect in your wave from the day of creation, until iniquity was
  found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)

The spiritual creation and later Lucifer's rebellion and fall obviously occurred before the seven days of creation.

  ... it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are
  spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence,
  and that they became evil by their own act.


Which Christian denomination removed trinitarian language from the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"? In a brief article on the Trinity by Gordon H. Clark, he makes a surprising claim about a popular trinitarian hymn:

  The hymn book of one denomination has rewritten "Holy, Holy, Holy," so as to exclude all reference to "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity."

I'd like to know what hymn book and denomination he's referring to.  Wikipedia doesn't mention any such rendition, and he doesn't provide any other identifying information about this denomination.  It's possible that the following paragraph's contrast to the "Presbyterian church" indicates that the change was made in a non-presbyterian hymnal, but that's not definitive.  And this article was written in 1954, so the hymnal must have been published before then, but probably not long before.

Which denomination and hymnal is Clark likely referring to?

I don't have any particular knowledge of which hymnal Gordon Clark was referring to, but on a hunch, I consulted my copy of "Christian Science Hymns" [1952 Edition], edited by Mary Baker Eddy's successors, and find that the text of Holy, Holy, Holy included there has the modifications you cite. Stanzas one and three have as the final line of the stanza, "which wert, and art, and ever more shall be".

I don't have a copy of a Jehovah's Witness hymnal in my collection, and it is possible, if the text is included in that collection, that it has been similarly altered.


Are there any major Protestant denominations that meet every day and are together all the time like the early church was? To my knowledge, most Protestant denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Non-denom, etc...) structure their church to meet once a week, with maybe a bible-study once a week as well. Though I am challenged when I read the devotion to fellowship of the first century church:

Acts 2:44-47 All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Act 5:42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.

I know that some Catholic churches have daily mass, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of any major protestant churches that structure their church to meet every day, whether in a designated building or in houses. I would especially be interested to hear how it's done first hand.

The two passages you cite from Acts involve may involve very different models of Christian life. The former describes how some Christians lived, the latter describes what some Christians did.

The citation from Acts 2 involves people who lived together, if not in the same structure, then at least in very close proximity. Religious life [Note: the use of the word "religious" here is to describe communities of Men and Women who live together in a consecrated life in communities such as monasteries and convents] commonly found among Catholics, Orthodox, and less common, but not unknown among Anglicans and Lutherans, and rare, but not unknown among other Christian denominations, fit this example. So, too, at least to some degree, do the Seminaries of most denominations, and universities operated by, or with close working relationships to various denominations, where students live together in dormitory housing.

The citation, to Acts 5, describes the principal Christian mission, evangelism. That is to say it describes what Christians did, and does not really speak to how they lived.  I like to think that I follow this model in my own life, not so much in the explicit form of proclamation described in Acts 5, but rather in the somewhat more subtle form of Matthew 5 (v. 16): "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, who is in heaven." (RSV). I know others whose behavior tells me that they are practicing Evangelism in the same manner.

For what it's worth, most major cities in the US have at least one Episcopal Parish at which at least morning and evening prayer are celebrated at least six (Sunday through Friday), if not seven, days a week. This is consistent with Biblical practice, where making sacrifices in the Temple was the work of the priests, who being obligated to keep the Sabbath the same as every other Jew, would not have offered Sacrifices n the Sabbath.


Need help remembering CS Lewis Quote about Joy and Chemical Reactions I know that there is a line by CS Lewis where he is talking about secular atheists have to try to forget their philosophy in order to find joy in life. The line goes something like...

"But insofar as... you go from having a good time to having a great time... you must remember that love is merely a chemical reaction."

There might also be a part about his wife, and how his love for her was nothing but a chemicial reaction if we presume that the secularist worldview is correct.

If someone could give me the quote along with perhaps a reference to where it came from I would be very grateful.

There's this passage on page 76 of Present Concerns:

  You can't, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behaviour of your genes. You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. You may still, in the lowest sense, have a ‘good time’; but just in so far as it becomes very good, just in so far as it ever threatens to push you on from cold sensuality into real warmth and enthusiasm and joy, so afar you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live.

This is quoted by Tim Keller on page 141 of The Reason for God.


Why is Adam considered the original sinner? In the Biblical account, Eve is the first to eat the forbidden fruit. Yet still the blame gets put on Adam and later on in the Bible it states that sin entered the world through one man.

Why is Adam considered the original sinner?

Genesis 3:6 (NIV) reveals that Adam was with Eve when she took the fruit.

  6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and
  pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took
  some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
  and he ate it.

Adam had the opportunity and authority to stop Eve from eating the fruit.  While maybe not the best reason, I believe Adam could be considered the original sinner, because he did not act within his power to stop the sin from occuring.

This is something to remember when you are watching someone you have authority over entering into sin.

I still believe Eve sinned, though.  1 Corinthians 8 indicates that even when another causes you to sin, you still own your own sin.

  1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NIV
   9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not
  become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak
  conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s
  temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to
  idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is
  destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way
  and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,
  if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will
  never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

From a technical perspective, Adam did sin first since his sin was allowing Eve's sin.

Also, for more on causing others to sin:

  Matthew 18:6 NLT
  6 But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall
  into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied
  around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.