What planet do Mormons think God the Father was born on? In 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith decided that Mormon baptisms are not valid as far as Catholicism is concerned, because of certain doctrines of Mormonism that are problematic from a Catholic viewpoint.  This articleby Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. summarizes these problematic doctrines, and here is one of them:

  God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346).

My question is, what planet do Mormons think God the Father is a native of?  I didn't know that Mormons believe that there are or were humans on multiple planets.

By the way, TPJS refers to the LDS document "Scriptural Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith", and here is what I found on pages 345-346:

  God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I think the fact that Joseph Smith says "an earth" rather than "the earth" is why Ladaria says "another planet".

In any case, do the Book of Mormon or any LDS documents shed light on the identity of this planet?  Do Mormons believe that humans still live on that planet?

LDS believe in Worlds Without Number, and that the Earth has been patterned after other worlds. This is not the first time a world has been created for people to dwell on and face trials, and it will not be the last.

As for which planet God the Father may have been Born on, the only clue we have to speculate on is from the Book of Abraham:

  2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them
  was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones
  which were near unto it;

  3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the
  name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am
  the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong
  to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

We are taught that when the Earth has fulfilled it's purposes, that it will receive it's paradisiacal glory, and we will dwell on it. If God dwells near Kolob, then it may be reasonable to assume that he might have been born and lived there (or near there) as a man also, before it received its paradisiacal glory (assuming Kolob is actually a planet an not a star, there isn't a unanimous consensus on which it is).

As with many other mysteries about God, knowing where our Father lived as a man is not pertinent to our salvation. All that matters in this life is knowing that he exists, that he has sent us here for a reason, and that he has told us how to return to live with him in glory.


Do Biblical Unitarians consider worshiping Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit as God to be idolatry? Many Christians believe that Jesus is God (it's just a matter of realizing how widespread trinitarianism is, for example). However, there are Christians that go one step further and act on this belief, treating Jesus for all practical purposes as God almighty. They pray to Jesus, they talk about Jesus all the time, and they even worship Him as God (for some good illustrative examples, please see this and this).
Likewise, there are Christians who do pretty much the same with the Holy Spirit. A very good example is Benny Hinn's best-selling book Good Morning, Holy Spirit, which has been read and cherished by thousands, if not millions of Christians around the world. In this video clip you can see Benny Hinn leading a whole stadium to worship the Holy Spirit.
Question: According to Biblical Unitarians: Does worshiping either Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God entail committing the sin of idolatry? When Christians worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God, are they sinning? If the answer is yes, then what happens to those Christians who have systematically committed this sin throughout their lives and die never repenting? Will they go to Hell as unrepentant idolaters, or does the answer depend on other conditions?

Answering to the comments: why would idolaters go to Hell?
1 Cor 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Biblical Unitarians consider trinitarianISM idolatry (point 8). In reality, all humans are guilty of some form of idolatry - this is covered under Christ's sacrifice, but God holds the teachers of error accountable.
There is only one God (the Father), so He deserves our worship. God also directs worship to as His exalted son, the Lamb, who co-rules with Him, sharing the throne of God. Rev. is explicitly clear - the Lamb is not God.
So nothing has changed - there is still one God, He now has a son who has exceedingly fulfilled all expectations and is now honoured and given a place at the highest - but he is a man and still not God. To modify the clear biblical teaching on this is to create our own god which is idolatry. To make Jesus equal with God is to diminish His GODliness - also idolatry. No scripture places Jesus equal with God - that is man's doing.
That millions of Christians have died believing some kind of error - even about God Himself, is irrelevant to God's salvation plan.
That error largely took over the church within a few centuries is irrelevant to God's salvation plan.
Believing that Jesus is God might be 'common' sense, but this is not what the bible teaches.
The Holy Spirit is simply God - His presence, His power and His wisdom and love. The apostles understood this. The link explains extensively the riches of correctly understanding what God's Spirit is and does.

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Luke 12:12
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matthew 10:20.

Speaking or praying to the Spirit is really addressing God (the Father) There is no 'person' Holy Spirit and in no text of Scripture is the Holy Spirit worshipped or prayed to, send greetings or other basic relationship essentials. The New Testament nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the 'wisdom' of God, as having independent personality.
The other questions about 'sinning and 'going to hell' are of no value - should we judge one another in matters that concern God's judgement through His son? All are covered under the one sacrifice and will be called to account of the lives we have lived - none can stand alone, but depend wholly on Jesus.
God has provided His word for all men to read and enquire of the one true God mentioned since the beginning. If we choose to believe other messages about who God is, that is for each to decide. Deception is a beast that no one can defeat unless God grants the victory and resultant clarity of truth and wisdom.
Either we are so blessed or we may ask. Or we must wait until the truth is revealed to all.


Are all humans in Heaven equal or is there also a kind of hierarchy? (Roman Catholic perspective) If so what determines what their position is?

What is equal is that all human would see God from face to face. But Jesus made an implication that one could sit on either of his site. Are these place for special holy persons, like saints?
On the other hand some persons go straight to Heaven and others will first go to purify themselves in the purgatory. So from that site one perhaps can expect that after purification every one is equal.

So is there a kind of hierarchy in Heaven, if so what determines it?

This is according to RCC.

No, everyone in heaven is not equal because of the diversity of their merits.

The degree of closeness to God in heaven depends on one's merits. The Council of Florence, under the authority of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447), defined the dogma (DZ 693) that

  the souls of those, who … are immediately received into heaven, … see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.

Since the Blessed Virgin Mother has the greatest merits, she is the closest to God in heaven.

Also, one cannot merit in purgatory. Since people die with a diversity of merits, so is there a diversity of merit in heaven.


According to Catholicism, can the saints be given the title "co-mediator of Grace"? If Mary is "Mediatrix of all Graces" is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?

E.g., the patron saint of finding lost things is a co-mediator who specifically dispenses the grace of finding lost things.

Mediation is a relative term. That is you can't mediate something from yourself to someone else per se. For example, Christ mediates between God and man (being Himself both).

Thus, any of us can mediate (go between or relay something/be the instrument of confering something to someone else):

  1 Timothy 2:2

  First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions,
  and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all
  those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in
  all godliness and dignity.

Mary is said to be Mediatrix of all graces in a relative sense, since she is only said to mediate from Christ to the rest of us.

[That Mary is Mediatrix of all graces is not as yet Catholic dogma; and it is very much debated among Catholics—you may believe or not believe Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, although it would be prudent, seeing the consistency with which it has been taught, to consider it something worthy of belief—it has not been definitively settled by the Magisterium/teaching authority of the Church. This quasi dogma is closely linked to Mary's being Co-Redemptrix (see below), and so many who reject this her being Co-Mediatrix with Christ also reject the former.]

For example, Pope Leo XIII said:

  ...it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary
  through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies
  gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.
  Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to
  Christ but by his Mother. §

§ Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Rosary Octobri mense, September 21, 1891

But Blessed Pope Pius IX implies Mary is not exclusively the only Mediatrix, only that she is the ultimate, you could say, "among women":

  ...with her only-begotten Son,* is the most powerful Mediatrix and
  Conciliatrix in the whole world †

† Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854. [the same papal document defining the Immaculate Conception of Mary]

[note mine—1 Timothy 2:5]

This is powerful stuff. Note that he is speaking objectively. Like how Abraham didn't know he was actually going to the Father but through the Son. You mustn't strictly be aware that God has thus arranged the economy of His grace, but accept it once known.

She doesn't breach or usurp Christ's ultimate Mediatorship a) because 'usurp' implies a certain violence or a hesistance or reluctance or unwillingness to share your perogative, which we do not know Christ does with Mary, and expect that for His blessed mother He loves her much indeed b) that she is Mediatrix does not imply she doesn't need the grace from God & c) nowhere is it implied she can 'go past' Christ to get grace from God the Father: thus she is only an instrument of Christ (in a more loving way than that sounds).

Mary is an aqueduct which God has chosen, freely, to channel His graces through. Simply out of love, and in His eternal wisdom.

"Is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?"

In every way, yes. But they are not the exclusive mediators of any grace. Any more than Christ cannot chose to grant graces to anyone He wishes in an otherwise fashion than through His beloved mother, which we hold with a pious faith that He is not wont to do.

But yes, because if this is the case that God gives all His graces through Mary, then the saints may be the special mediators for certain graces, but only to a relative degree: no saint has a monopoly over one kind of God's graces.

Appendix

Mary as Co-Redemptrix

This is closely linked and is very much analagous to the other doctrine of Mary's being Mediatrix with Christ, of all graces.

The core underlying link is that Mary is the Eve to Christ the New Adam:

Adam utlimately was responsible for the Fall.

Christ, called in Scripture "the Last Adam," was utlimately responsible for the Redemption.

Adam renames the Woman "Eve" ('Life') because "she was to be the mother of all the living," Christ, who exclusively called His mother "Woman," and named her "mother of all the living" in Christ: "behold thy mother" (Rev 12:1,5,17).

Etc.

But Eve did play a part in the Fall. She "instigated" it or in any event without her it might not have played out the same way. Thus Mary is viewed as a major part of God's plan in the Redmption. Mary "encourages" or "instigates" Christ's ministry and ultimate Redemption of mankind in asking Him to 'start the timer,' as it were, on His Passion and death by working His first miracle at Cana: Eve began the work of the first Adam, Mary began the work of the "Last Adam," Jesus Christ.

Scripture records that Mary also suffered by way of "sword" through her soul. Which doesn't sound very nice: that's because being hoyl and knowing that her Son was divinely holy, and innocent, nonetheless watched as His precious blood dripped down His unrecognisable body. And we believe that her sufferings God put into a kind of 'treasury', as all sufferings of good people do, wherefrom God can bestow them justly on others who said saints are willing that they should be bestowed.

Thus Mary's sufferings,though absolutely inferior and categorically separate from that of Jesus', may be, in a real way, the difference between some people getting graces for her sake than if she had not suffered. So she contributes for certain sinners a mini passion. Not to be diminished in reality, but, out of protection of the uniqueness and absolute superiority of Jesus' Passion, we ought to be very careful in speaking about.

Thus, they are kind of 'in it together' at the Garden, Adam and Eve. And there is a certain continuity with Christ and Mary, except Mary is not God or divine in any way, but she wants only what Christ wants and so to ask of Mary is to ask Christ. Because He won't refuse her anything nor do anything for her which would breach His justice. yet He is happier and more glad to fulfill the request of His mother as aparticularly exemplary "spiri[t] of the righteous made perfect".

Thus she is the greatest advocate for us with Christ for graces, and thus with God.


What is the source of the Martin Luther's quote, "We all carry about in our pockets His very nails?" It is easy to find this on a quote site, but I can't find where it is in Luther's writings. I know Luther means that each of us are personally responsible for crucifying Jesus, but wWhat is the context of the statement? What exactly did he mean, according to scholars and church leaders who have studied his theology?

Originally, I thought the quote was about universal responsibility for Christ's crucifixion, but it now appears Luther was writing about another issue, probably showing our faith by our actions. I have therefore changed the title to refer only to the quote.

The quote comes from Luther's commentary on Galatians, specifically on ch 6, vs 17.
Luther's Works. Volume 27: Lectures on Galatians 1535, Chapters 5-6, Lectures on Galatians 1519, Chapters 1-6

Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1964. Page 407:

  Although “marks”—in Latin this word means signs that are stamped on—may be taken here as referring to the sufferings of Paul, nevertheless—because Paul likes to make use of military allegories and metaphors—he certainly understands them in the sense of the distinctive tokens of the Christian life, which are the crucifixion and subjection of the flesh. In addition, they are the fruits of the spirit. For just as slaves bear the distinctive tokens, the arms, and the colors of their masters, so Paul and every Christian carries in his own body the cross of his lusts and vices—not indeed in the way in which it is customary nowadays to picture on a wall or in paintings and books the distinctive tokens of Christ assembled on a shield. No, every Christian carries this cross in the body—and in my own body, not in someone else’s. What good will it do if you carry even in gold and precious stone, not only the distinctive tokens but also the very nails, yes, the very wounds and blood of Christ, and never express the living image in your body? Moreover, circumcision and the works required by human laws are the marks of Moses and of popes and of Caesars. These alone are looked at now, and they are of such infinite variety that the emperor, together with all his nobles, hardly has so many kinds of distinctive marks."


What is the biblical basis for restitution? What is the New Testament Biblical basis for making restitution? I've read the story of Zacchaeus, and it's not completely set in stone as to what the structure is. The biggest question I have is if you've tried making restitution and the involved party won't accept your offer, should you do it anyway or is that "dishonoring" in any way?

The basis for making restitution is an Old Testament idea that is explicitly reiterated in the New Testament by Jesus.  When asked to summarize the law (the same law that he said he came to fulfill, not to abolish), Jesus uses an interesting formulation.  He said,

  He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

(This is in both Matthew and Luke)

In using this formulation, he was clearly drawing from Leviticus, a book we know he was thoroughly intimate with. (Not only here, but when he was tempted, etc...)  In using this formulation, he is explicitly pointing out that sin is sin against God and your neighbor, and as sin, it must be paid for. There are offerings, mentioned in Leviticus which come into play.

The OT basis for restitution

The biblical basis for restitution stems primarily from levitical law, and specifically, Leviticus 5 - 7. Leviticus 6, in particular looks to both the reasoning and the implementation of returning that which was taken, plus extra, to both the one offended and to the Lord against whom also the offender has sinned:

  6 [a]The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “When someone sins and offends the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in regard to a deposit, a security,[b] or a robbery; or defrauds his neighbor; 3 or finds something lost and lies about it; or swears falsely about any of the sinful things a person may do— 4 once he has sinned and acknowledged his guilt —he must return what he stole or defrauded, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost item he found, 5 or anything else about which he swore falsely. He must make full restitution for it and add a fifth of its value to it. He is to pay it to its owner on the day he acknowledges his guilt.

  6 Then he must bring his restitution offering to the Lord: an unblemished ram from the flock according to your assessment of its value as a restitution offering to the priest. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord, and he will be forgiven for anything he may have done to incur guilt.”

Restitution is a fairly simply property idea in law - a thief (however he took it) - should not be allowed to keep what he took, otherwise it makes a mockery of property rights.  Furthermore, the purpose of the law to is keep people from sinning against their neighbors as well as the Lord, so on the one hand, you don't want an incentive to sin, and on the other, you want clear consequences.

The Levitical approach, you will note, deals with both halves of the crime.

First, the victim gets his property back, plus profit (20% to be precise).  Not only does the thief not profit, he loses.  I find it interesting that the 20% "penalty" is equal to "two tithes," namely one for the Lord, plus one for the neighbor.

Restitution for God is required

In addition to the victim's payment, however, restitution demands a sacrifice.  The linkage between the restitution offering and the sin offering is explicitly the same. As it says in Leviticus 7:

  The restitution offering is like the sin offering; the law is the same for both. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.

The idea in making the parallel explicit is that it highlights that sin is sin against both your neighbor and the Lord.  After David got Uriah killed so as to cover up his affair with Bathsheba, David makes an interesting statement:

  Against you, you only, have I sinned
      and done what is evil in your sight;
  so you are right in your verdict
      and justified when you judge.

Now, I'll admit, I tend to think that David also sinned against Uriah, but the point is that David realizes the Lord is equally a party that need be satisfied for this sin.

Human forgiveness is optional. God's forgiveness is what counts

So, why do I keep hammering home the idea that one must "Love the Lord ... and Love your neighbor?"  Because, quite simply, forgiveness comes from the Lord.  If he has been satisfied with your attempt at restitution, you are forgiven. When you sinned, you sinned against two. If the greater one forgives, the lesser one's forgiveness isn't really that relevant. Sure, its nice if you can make up - but the sin was against the Lord, not your neighbor.

I doubt, for example, that Zaccheus was able to return an exact accounting for the extra taxes he swindled in a precise 120% return to each individual that he had wronged. Logistically, accountingwise, pridewise (on the part of the victims) - it would have been daunting. But as Zaccheus proclaimed that he would give restitution, surely the Lord the was pleased.  That's the point.

Restitution is an outward manifestation of an inward desire for repentance. It is a sign before God and man that the heart has changed. God forgives, man benefits. Both are offended, and the bigger one is clearly reconciled.


According to the Catholic Church, will people be able to have private conversations with God at any time in Heaven? Every now and then, I say to myself, "I'll have to ask God about this when I get to Heaven."

My Question:

According to the Catholic Church, will it be possible to ask such questions once we're in Heaven?

Specifically,

Did Jesus (or anyone in the Bible) ever talk about the nature of our interactions with God in Heaven?
Can humans have a private conversation with God in Heaven whenever they want?
Or do they need to schedule an appointment and wait?
Or do we talk to God through prayer, much like we do on Earth?

I'm especially interested in Biblical support for any answer.

The Bible does not say anything explicitly regarding this question. However, there are a number of things that can be deduced from what the Scriptures say.

The resurrection of the body

The first thing to keep in mind is that in Heaven, at the General Resurrection, we will have our bodies restored to us. This is found throughout the New Testament (and parts of the Old Testament as well), but probably the most explicit statement is from St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians:

  So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:42-44, ESV; however, all of chapter 15 deals with this issue).

We could also mention Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Acts 17:18, Matthew 22:29-32 and the parallel passages, as well as 2 Maccabees 7 (which for Catholics is considered canonical).

That means that, although (as St. Paul implies), our glorified bodies will have new and wonderful properties in Heaven, we will remain corporeal for all eternity.

Another observation to make is that, although God, in His Divine Nature, is pure spirit (as implied by passages such as Numbers 23:19), of course through the Incarnation, the Word, who is God, became flesh like us (John 1:14).

It follows that it will be possible to have physical interactions with Jesus (who is God), and presumably also private conversations. How exactly that will play out is difficult to imagine (e.g., there are an awful lot of us, and only one Jesus; however time will also work differently in Heaven), but since

  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes (Rev. 21:4)

we can be sure that our desire to speak with Him will be well provided for.

Seeing God “face-to-face”

It should be noted, however, that our happiness in Heaven stems not only from being in the physical presence of Jesus (although that will be an important part of it, certainly), but above all from the so-called Beatific Vision. This Vision is described beautifully by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians:

  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:12, which comes right after the hymn to charity).

Similarly, in the First Letter of St. John says,

  Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

This implies that we will, as it were, be immersed in the presence of God in Heaven. It will probably not be necessary, therefore, to have private conversations with Him, in order to obtain knowledge.

That does not mean that we will not enjoy conversations with Jesus, or what have you—just that we will have access to an even more perfect form of communication with God. Having the Vision is better than a private conversation, and it will certainly be available always, since it is the very essence of Heaven.

Prayer, as we know it on earth, is not needed in Heaven. We will be in direct contact with Him. And no, of course, there is no question of appointments. Time will exist in such a way that it will not be a limit on our access to God.


What Doctrine Supports The Christian Gun Culture? In America, there is a large group of people where being a Christian, active in the gun culture and protecting their right to fire arms is proudly the basis of their identity.

For example, at the shooting range you may see a bumper sticker on a car stating "All I need is my Bible and a gun". (The movies also eat this one up romanticizing, glorify and macho-fy this phenomenon.)

What denomination or general belief is the root of this phenomenon and is it like that in other countries?

As a preface, I think the question might benefit from some further clarification. Aside from considering the matter in the light of Scripture, it seems many would likely agree that there is a significant difference between what might be called "responsible gun ownership" and the subculture often highlighted by the media that defiantly and aggressively glorifies gun ownership.

I'm aware of no Scriptural basis on which gun ownership can be advocated. In fact, the first verse that comes to mind is Mt 26:52:

  Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

No historical doctrines come to mind, either. Roman Catholic "Just War" doctrine doesn't seem related to the issue, though someone with better knowledge of the Church of Rome may know otherwise.

The strongest potential connection I can see between the church and the "gun culture" would stem from the independent, uncompromising, perhaps "defiant" character of the Protestant Reformation in relation to the Church of Rome in the 16th century. (Some of Luther's "antics" come to mind). Elements of the same uncompromising approach can be seen in the choice of the Puritans to separate from the Church of England.

But, while I'm not a pacifist, I don't mean to suggest that the Bible encourages gun ownership. As far as I'm aware, it does not.


What is the biblical basis used by Reformed theologians to argue that all those dying in infancy are saved? In American Presbyterianism and Reformed theology more generally, one of the controversial issues has been the fate of children dying in infancy.  The Westminster Confession of Faith reads:

  Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ (10.3)

The Confession thus leaves open the possibility that some infants are not elect and therefore not saved, and historically this has incited significant debate.  In 1903 the PCUSA adopted a declaratory statement affirming universal salvation of those dying in infancy, against the opposition of "old school" theologians like B. B. Warfield.  But Warfield only opposed making the position a confessional standard; personally he actually agreed with it:

  For myself, I believe with all my heart that all dying in infancy are saved, and I believe that I can prove it from Scripture. ("Does the Confession Need Revision?" II)

To me this view seems problematic because Reformed theology typically holds that adults who never hear the gospel are unsaved.  So universal salvation of deceased infants would mean that some of the children of these adults go to heaven, despite neither the infants nor the adults ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel.  Why do Reformed theologians think they would be treated differently?

Other questions here deal generally with the question of infant salvation, so I'll be very specific here:

According to Reformed theologians, what is the biblical basis for the idea that all those who die in infancy are saved?

Reformed theologians could include the Presbyterian opponents of Warfield, but I'm most interested in the arguments made by conservatives like Warfield.
I'm looking for biblical basis.  Saying "it wouldn't be fair" isn't going to cut it, unless the Bible is used to make this argument by these Reformed theologians.
I'm not interested in the basis for some dying infants being saved – I want to know the basis for all dying infants being saved.
I'm not interested in the "how" – whether dying infants have faith or not is not relevant; only that they are saved.

Related questions (and why they aren't duplicates):

What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?

This is an overview question, not a biblical basis question.

How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?

Similar, but is wider in scope, allowing for non-biblical and non-Reformed answers.  For example, the conclusion of the accepted answer is extremely questionable from a Reformed perspective.

What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?

Similar, but two key differences: (1) there is a difference between infants having faith vs. simply being saved (my question is more general in this sense) and (2) my question refers to the idea of all infants being saved, while this question does not address that point.

See John Piper's article: What happens to infants who die?

All infants are sinners (Romans 5:12-21)

"At least" Some infants are saved: John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), David (Psalm 22:9-10).

Those not capable of perceiving good and evil are not guilty of sinful acts (John 9:41, Romans 1:20).

God is good (Psalm 119:68). Trust that he will do what is just and merciful.

Quoting Piper:

  It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in
  infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that
  God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the
  individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses
  someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather,
  He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation
  will be allowed to die in infancy. God's justice in condemnation will
  be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to
  demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing
  transgression.


If Christianity speaks out against the use of "magic" does this mean "magic" is literally real? If the bible opposes the practice of magic does this mean its claims of "magic" are literally real (as opposed to metaphorically)?

If so, is there scientific proof of the existence of "magic"? Is there an explanation of what "magic" is in the first place?

The Bible also opposes idolatry, even though the prophets say that an idol is nothing but a thing made out of wood and precious metal.
as Psalm 135 says:

The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.
16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;
17 they have ears, but cannot hear,
nor is there breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.

Or as Jeremiah says,

People who worship idols are stupid and foolish.
The things they worship are made of wood!

Any quick concordance search will show that "worthless" and "idols" show up a lot!  So, if there is no power in an idol, why does God make such a big deal over it? Because of it's effect on the idol worshiper!
The problem with magic isn't so much the "magic," but rather the senseless chasing after another power. When, in Acts 8, Simon the magician wanted to purchase this power, Peters reaction was that he didn't understand what God was.
As Luke writes it in Acts,

 9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw ...
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin

To this same end, magic is not an opposing force to God, but is rather a red herring that keeps them from Him.


What is the earliest recorded instance where Mary is called "Blessed Virgin?" I was recently spending some thought on this topic which came from this question: How do Protestants understand the blessedness of Mary in Luke 1:48?

I answered the question and proposed as an afterthought that people cynical of Catholic Tradition would quickly dismiss the significance that Mary is called blessed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not sure yet how this might help that argument either way, but what is the earliest instance (outside of Luke's gospel) of Mary being called "Blessed Virgin" or some variation involving the word "blessed"? Since the Lucan story specifically states that "all generations will call me blessed", I don't want a quote from Luke or any work that just retells the story. I mean any works from later writers that explicitly call Mary "blessed"; that is, examples of further generations calling Mary blessed.

If it so happens that such statements evolved to their current state I would like to see a few examples showing that evolution.

The mother of Christ was specifically called "blessed" at least as far back as the end of the second century AD, and given the title "the Blessed Virgin" at least as far back as the early fifth century.
CCEL.org, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, lists several references for "blessed Mary" from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. For example:

And when he had thus said, the angel ordered the beast to stand, for the time when she should bring forth was at hand; and he commanded the blessed Mary to come down off the animal, and go into a recess under a cavern, in which there never was light, but always darkness, because the light of day could not reach it.  And when the blessed Mary had gone into it, it began to shine with as much brightness as if it were the sixth hour of the day.  The light from God so shone in the cave, that neither by day nor night was light wanting as long as the blessed Mary was there.

(Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18; in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages: Philip Schaff, ed.)
Wikipedia quotes (but does not provide a reference to) a work dating this apocryphon to the early seventh century.
There's also a letter from Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I), who was Pope from 590 to 604 AD:

Epistle LVI.
To Peter, Subdeacon.
Gregory to Peter, &c.
Being exceedingly desirous of observing the festivals of saints, we have thought it needful to address this our letter of direction to thy Experience, informing thee that we have arranged for the dedication with all solemnity, with the help of the Lord, in the month of August, of the Oratory of the Blessed Mary lately built in the cell of brethren where the abbot Marinianus is known to preside, to the end that what we have begun may through the Lord’s operation be completed.  But, inasmuch as the poverty of that cell requires that we should assist in that day of festival, we therefore desire thee to give for celebrating the dedication, to be distributed to the poor, ten solidi in gold, thirty amphoræ of wine, two hundred lambs, two orcæ of oil, twelve wethers, and a hundred hens, which may be afterwards charged in thy accounts.  Provide therefore for this being done at once without any delay, that our desires, God granting it, may take speedy effect.

("Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great", translated by James Barmby)
Even earlier than this, I see that this series of writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers includes letters from Theodoret of Cyrus, who lived in the early fifth century. He writes (to a "Bishop Timotheus", who may be Pope Timothy II of Alexandria):

And, again, Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call His name Jesus".

(Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Earlier still, there is a fragment of a sermon by Saint Hippolytus:

Tell me, O blessed Mary, what that was that was conceived by thee in the womb, and what that was that was born by thee in thy virgin matrix.

This then pushes back use of "blessed" to describe the mother of Christ at least as far back as the late second or early third century AD.


Who never died in the Bible? I know Jesus is risen and that whole story, but when I was much younger I remember hearing about some people who never actually died in the Bible. Who are these people and how did they leave this world?

Enoch and Elijah are the two that fit this category.

  When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch
  walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had
  other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.
  Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV

  And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and
  horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a
  whirlwind into heaven.  2 Kings 2:11 ESV

Some have speculated that Moses also fits into this category, but that doesn't fit with this verse:

  Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his
  vigor unabated.  Deuteronomy 34:7 ESV

The idea that Moses could have been in that category probably comes from the record that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.

  And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun,
  and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to
  them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:2-3 ESV

So, Enoch and Elijah are the two that meet this criterion.

As an aside, Lazarus and a few others died twice, so the death rate of all people who have ever lived is actually slightly greater than 100%.  :)

It should also be noted that according to 1 Thessalonians, there are still some people who will not experience physical death, but will enter eternity prior to death.  This is yet future, though.  (Asleep is thought to be a euphemism for physical death)

  But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are
  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For
  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through
  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this
  we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive,
  who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who
  have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with
  a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound
  of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we
  who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in
  the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with
  the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.  1
  Thessalonians 4:13-18 ESV


Being 'known by Jesus' in Matthew 7:22 In Matthew 7:21-22 Jesus says for Him to know me I must do His will. There are plenty of scriptures that talk about God seeing us and knowing us, why then does Jesus say I didn't know you? Is it because the word 'know' is more of an intimate 'knowing' ie, a relationship?

For Jesus to ‘know’ us means we have submitted to his Lordship and we are no longer slaves but are intimate acquaintances.  Jesus said this of his disciples:

  Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother (Mark 3:35).

When we know Jesus and believe in him, we are adopted into God’s family:

  Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12)

We can call God “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15).  It doesn’t get more personal and intimate than that!  When people speak of “knowing” Jesus, they refer to having a relationship with Him.  Being a Christian is more than knowing about Jesus; being a Christian is about knowing Him personally.  Jesus spoke of the need to know the Saviour when He prayed:

  This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

When we know Jesus, we also know God:

  We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.  And we are in him who is true – even in his son, Jesus Christ.  He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)

There were people in Jesus’ day who thought they were friends of his because they knew the Law, made strict rules for themselves (and for others), and listened to his teaching.  They followed him, applauded the miracles, and liked some of what he said. But Jesus calls them “evildoers” and declared, “I never knew you.”  Matthew 7:21-23

They didn’t know who Jesus REALLY was.  Some people have an intellectual, head knowledge of Jesus.  They may have read the Bible and believe it, but have never allowed the truth about Jesus to penetrate into their hearts so that their lives are transformed.  Jesus said:

  These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (Matthew 15:8–9 quoting Isaiah 29:13)

To really know Jesus means we grasp the significance of what God, in Jesus, did to pay for our sins and we seek his forgiveness so that we may know him personally, and enjoy intimate fellowship with him through the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).


What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16? We read at Lk 22:14-16 (NRSVCE):

"When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Jesus does eat with his disciples after the resurrection (Lk 24:42). So, it is not the mundane food that He  is referring to. As for Passover meal, one could not expect it being served  in Heaven. My question therefore, is: What kind of food is Jesus referring to in Lk 22:16 when He says that He will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God? What does the Catholic Church have to say on the subject?

St. Bede writes (as quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Golden Chain commentary on Luke 22, lesson 4):

  Thus then was our Lord the approver of the legal Passover; and as He taught that it related to the figure of His own dispensation, He forbids it henceforth to be represented in the flesh.* Therefore He adds, "For I say to you, I will not any more eat thereof; until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God". That is, I will no more celebrate the Mosaic Passover, until, being spiritually* understood, it is fulfilled in the Church. For the Church is the kingdom of God; as in Luke [17:21], "The kingdom of God is within you." Again, the ancient Passover, which He desired to bring to an end, is also alluded to in what follows; "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take you, &c." For this gave He thanks, that the old things were about to pass away, and all things to become new.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, sermon 151 on Luke 22:7-16:

  "But I will not eat of this Passover until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And in this again Christ utters a profound and mysterious truth, of which He Himself, however, reveals to us the meaning. For it is His custom to give the name of "the kingdom of heaven" to justification by faith, to the cleansing that is by holy baptism and the participation of the Holy Spirit, and to the offering of spiritual service, now rendered possible by the entering in of the gospel laws. But these things are the means of our being made partakers of the promises, and of our reigning together with Christ: and therefore He says, "I will no more draw near to such a Passover as this," one namely that consisted in the typical eating,*—for a lamb of the flock was slain to be the type of the true Lamb,—"until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God:" that is, until the time has appeared in which the kingdom of heaven is preached. For this is fulfilled in us, who honor the worship that is superior to the law, even the true Passover; nor is it a lamb of the flock which sanctifies those who are in Christ, but Himself rather, being made a holy sacrifice for us, by the offering of bloodless oblations, and the mystical giving of thanks, in which we are blessed and quickened with life. For He became for us "the living bread that came down from heaven, and gives life to the world:" by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Thus, it's a spiritual food.cf. Jn. 4:34: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me"


How do Mormon missionaries learn foreign languages so quickly? Latter-day Saints who choose to serve missions enter a Missionary Training Center for just 2-10 weeks before they go out into their assigned areas for the remaining 18 or 24 months.

Since many serve in foreign countries, they learn a new language while in training, and many missionaries are fluent after about a year.

What techniques are used to teach LDS missionaries, and how to they get away with doing so in such a short span of time? Would the LDS church claim that it's related to the gift of tongues?

I served as an LDS missionary for two years and I think it can be predominantly attributed to a few simple things.

8-12 weeks in the Missionary Training Center where you study the language for at least 6-8 hours of the day have a big effect. We had experienced teachers that also went through the learning process. After a few weeks of study, we were asked to communicate only in the mission language we were studying, which greatly accelerated the learning process.
Total immersion in the language. I was sent from Salt Lake City straight to a city in Mexico, where I was assigned to work with a companion that was experienced and also knew no English at all. The need to communicate was a necessity, and created a total immersion in the language. The way it is typically set up, you cannot fully function until you learn the language.
This may be an extension of point 2, but you are encouraged to pray, read, and even think in the mission language from your first weeks of training. The program and method is designed to push you.
After leaving the Missionary Training Center, each missionary takes at least one hour out of every day (for two years) to specifically study a foreign language (the mission language if you are not native to the location, and English if you do not already know it).

It also helps when you have full faith that if you're trying your best, God can give you the gift of tongues. When you have complete faith that God will help you learn the language, you tend to have some fairly accelerated learning.

The LDS church provides counsel to missionaries trying to learn a language in their missionary handbook, Preach My Gospel.


Who, how many are the authors of the book of Genesis? How credible are its authors?

The rest of the Bible is mostly a book of History many events of which can be checked out with other sources, while the doctrinal parts are often the work of a well defined prophet/saint, but, how credible are the authors of Genesis? Could it be just a collection of ideas and beliefs with little or no authority at all?

Traditionally, Genesis was finished mostly by Moses, having the creation stories and stories of Abraham handed down to him (and the Hebrews) by previous generations.

I think rather than asking about the credibility of Genesis, one should question the credibility of the Torah (1st 5 books of the OT). While narrative books such as Chronicles and prophetic books like Isaiah are shown OVER TIME by the Jews to be inspired, the Torah has been considered by the Jews as sacred and inspired for many generations - at least from 9th century (depending on what date you want to give the Torah).

It's historical credibility boils down to how one believes the world was created and whether the flood actually happened etc. Some are convinced that there is scientific evidence to back creation as well as the flood. It really depends on what you're willing to be open to - whether you want to look into evidence for creation and the flood.
Other than that, Genesis' credibility can be found in its theology. It's the theology and philosophical truths of Genesis that has made the Jews believe in its divine inspiration and, therefore, has given the author credibility.


If God is omniscient how can he regret? It is said in the bible that God is omniscient but if he is omniscient how can he regret his actions?

I'm especially interested in this question in context of Genesis 6:6:

  The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

This is an anthropomorphism, which according to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 77:20, page 1288:

  21. (the first of three paragraphs on the subject) The attribution of human features and behavior to nonhuman beings (along with anthropopathism - the attribution of human feelings) is common in both religious and profane literature of all cultures. What makes anthropomorphism worthy of special attention in the OT is the difficulty of reconciling it with the prohibition of images and the explicit denials that Yahweh is like any created being. The fear of a plastic image of Yahweh is in marked contrast to the lack of restraint in employing verbal images. Yahweh has a countenance, eyes, ears, mouth nostrils, hands, feet. He speaks, hears, smells, laughs, hisses, whistles, strikes, writes, walks. He feels delight, joy, anger, hatred, love, disgust, compassion (see e.g., T. E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God [OBT 14; Ph, 1984]. The OT never speaks of Yahweh without attributing human traits to him. There is scarcely any OT anthropomorphism that cannot be paralleled in other ancient Semitic literature; for the gods of other ancient Semitic peoples were personifications of natural forces or social realities to whom were attributed human features and behavior.

So it should be clear God does not literally regret, but this is an anthropomorphism to express an inexpressible idea.


Why didn’t the disciples baptize using a Trinitarian formula as commanded in the Great Commission? If the Mathew 28:19 (and the Great Commission therein) is considered an authentic verse, why aren’t there any instances in the NT where the apostles actually baptized someone using the Trinitarian formula (i.e., “in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”)?

  19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NKJV, 1982

I'm looking for explanations given by defenders of trinitarianism.

In Acts (2:38, 8:12, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5), baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is mentioned. By saying "name" (singular), the Divine Essence of the Holy Trinity is signified, not the Persons individually. It is not not solely the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who effects baptism, but all the Persons working together as one.

As the Catechism of the Council of Trent §The Sacrament of Baptism, says regarding the form of the sacrament of baptism,

  Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom St. John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1:33), but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together. By saying, however, in the name [singular], not in the names [plural], we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead. The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

Also, see these sections of idem:

  Essential And Non-Essential Words Of The Form

  It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this
  form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are
  absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid
  administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the
  contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

  Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is
  included in the word baptizo (I baptise). Nay more, the Greek
  Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being
  of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister,
  omits the pronoun altogether. The form universally used in the Greek
  Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptised in the name of the
  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It appears, however,
  from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that
  those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the
  words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of
  Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

  Baptism In The Name Of Christ

  If at any time the Apostles baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus
  Christ only, we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy
  Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their
  preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to
  proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power. If, however,
  we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form
  omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for
  he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by
  whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

  And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if
  we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for
  sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus
  Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as
  distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not
  depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct
  names of the Three Persons. Paul also, in his Epistle to the
  Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when
  he says: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on
  Christ, meaning that they were baptised in the faith of Christ, but
  with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had
  commanded to be observed.


Which canon did the Early Church recognize? I’m trying to compile the History of the Bible, at least the Christian recognition of what was inspired and what wasn’t in the Old Testament. I‘ll neglect the question of who had the authority to chose what books went where, as that is not the point. I have a question:
What version of the Old Testament did the Early Church recognize as inspired, as in what Jewish canon did they trust to Remove or keep in the Septuagint? From that, when were books from the Septuagint removed from Western Bibles and for what reason, I already know the East kept the whole Septuagint because they aren’t as legalistic and let local tradition mostly rule, but when did the west do away with 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, and others? Most importantly, why?

The earliest Old Testament canon is mentioned by Josephus circa 95CE, as well as the reason why they considered it "from God".  From there, it's history is shown by Melito of Sardis circa 175CE.  These earliest canons never included what came to be called the apocrypha.
Josephus
Although he does not name specific books, it is quite clear to which 22 he refers.  He also speaks of a valid prophetic line for their acceptance and not others.  This, of course, is mentioned by Christ (Mat 11:13, Luke 16:16, Luke 24:44).

“We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, and continue the history down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.

From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.

From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.
-Josephus, Against Apion-

He is very clear about which books they considered "God breathed", meaning the valid prophetic line.
Melito
For more context on Melito, "Melito may have been the immediate successor of the "angel" (or "apostle") of the church of Sardis, to whom our Great High Priest addressed one of the apocalyptic messages. He was an "Apostolic Father" in point of fact; he very probably knew the blessed Polycarp and his disciple Irenaeus. He is justly revered for the diligence with which he sought out the evidence which, in his day, established the Canon of the Old Testament, then just complete." see here.
As quoted by Eusebius; emphasis mine.

Accordingly when I [Melito] went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,1310 Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,1311 the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,1312 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book1313; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.1314 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
-Eusebius, Church History-

As quoted elsewhere.

I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list.  Their names are as follows:—

The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua,3623 Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.  From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.
-Book of Extracts-

This canon is the same as the Protestant canon, sans Esther.  Some would argue, however, that Esther was also part of the one book "Esdras" (Ezra, Nehemia).  Or it was a mere oversight as he mentions Esther elsewhere.  See the links for more.
Jerome
Jerome is an interesting figure in the history of the canon of Scripture.  He wrote circa 400.

Preface to the Books of the Kings. Circa A.D. 391.
This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, "Helmeted Preface," was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint "are not in the canon."
-Source-

This link will also provide more information on the canon.  As noted in the comments, the definition of "early" is an interesting one.  I try to find the earliest references and see what is said.
Justin Martyr
He wrote about 140 and taught in Rome.  This is his confirmation of what Josephus and Melito had said about the prophetic line and authentic Scripture.

There were, then, among the Jews certain men who were prophets of God, through whom the prophetic Spirit published beforehand things that were to come to pass, ere ever they happened. ... And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose.
First Apology, Chapter XXXI

End
So, which OT canon did the early church recognize?  The answer is it recognized what the Protestants recognize for the same reason.


How would a Reformed theologian distinguish his or her view of atonement? The term 'limited atonement' has been used, and I wonder how the Reformed is differing by definition from the Evangelical view of atonement. Further, what Scriptures do the Reformed base this view upon?

(I have attempted to answer some questions Biblically, having been brought up mainly in the Evangelical tradition, to find that my answers are dissatisfying for someone seeking the particular view of the Reformed or Calvinist.  I am interested in learning what some specific differences are between the two traditions, having only a general understanding at present.  This question is in that vein.)

This is not my personal answer, as to what I believe, but rather what I am coming to understand about the difference in views with regard to the extent of the atonement.

I found two excellent summaries.

The first is in favor of the term 'limited atonement' and the concepts behind it.  It is written from a "modern reformation" perspective which I suspect holds to 5-point Calvinism.

The second is from a 4-point Calvinist position which rejects the language and concept of 'limited atonement."  As these views are the closest I have found, with this one difference, I thought it would be worth posting the links for these articles here.

From the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:
"Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement" Rev. Richard Phillips (chair of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology and senior pastor at Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, S.C.)

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals/read/articles/limited-vs-unlimited-atonement-10721.html

From Reasong from the Scriptures Ministries
"The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement"  Ron Rhodes
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html


Was Absalom's hair really that strong? So David's son had some pretty awesome hair:

  2 Samuel 14:25-26 ESV Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king's weight.

200 shekels is about 5 pounds. That's crazy. It's also crazy that Absalom could get suspended from tree branches by his hair apparently long enough for Joab to have a conversation and then kill him.

  2 Samuel 18:9,14 ESV And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on ... Joab said, “I will not waste time like this with you.” And he took three javelins in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the oak.

Is this possible? Can hair get that heavy and strong? This has bothered me for a while because I've wondered if this could be some figure of speech even though it's written so plainly.

I feel like the best and most obvious way to answer this would be to just find someone with equivalent hair structure. Whether through an article or picture or anything else.

Healthy human hair can absorb 30% of its weight in water. This gal's hair weighs 25lbs when wet.

This analysis by a skeptic offers some details about average human hair. (Read the comments, too.) According to his calculations, 29 years' growth of hair (for an "average" human) could weigh that much. If Absalom was indeed unusually locked, his numbers could be even smaller.

On a side note, one human hair can support 3.5 oz, so, if the average person has 100K hairs, it wouldn't be too much for Absalom's to get tangled in a tree and hold him off the ground.


What is the Biblical basis for baby dedications? Many churches do not practice infant baptisms, because they believe that in the Bible baptism is taught to be something done after a person chooses to follow Christ.

As an alternative, many of those churches practice "baby dedications."  A baby dedication is not a baptism (there is no water involved).  It's more like a public pledge by the parents to raise their babies in the Lord.

What Biblical basis or precedent is cited for this practice?

The most usual passage cited is:

1 Samuel 1:11 (HCSB)
11 Making a vow, she pleaded, “LORD of Hosts, if You will take notice of Your servant’s affliction, remember and not forget me, and give Your servant a son, I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and his hair will never be cut.”
1 Samuel 1:23-28 (HCSB)
23 Her husband Elkanah replied, “Do what you think is best, and stay here until you’ve weaned him. May the LORD confirm your word.” So Hannah stayed there and nursed her son until she weaned him. 24 When she had weaned him, she took him with her to Shiloh, as well as a three-year-old bull, half a bushel of flour, and a jar of wine. Though the boy was still young, she took him to the LORD’s house at Shiloh. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull and brought the boy to Eli.
26 “Please, my lord,” she said, “as sure as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this boy, and since the LORD gave me what I asked Him for, 28 I now give the boy to the LORD. For as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.” Then he bowed in worship to the LORD there.

Personally, I don't know of anyone who dedicates their child to the LORD as completely as Hannah did.  Another commonly referenced passage is Luke 2 when Jesus is brought to the temple.  Again, the form of the dedication is not followed since it was following the Jewish circumcision ritual and the command about the firstborn:

Exodus 13:2 (HCSB)
2 “Consecrate every firstborn male to Me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is Mine.”

Another example that seems more applicable is:

Mark 10:13-16 (HCSB)
13 Some people were bringing little children to Him so He might touch them, but His disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me. Don’t stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I assure you: Whoever does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 After taking them in His arms, He laid His hands on them and blessed them.

By implication, even infants are part of the kingdom of God if their parents bring them before Jesus.

Historically, the purpose of the dedication is to replace some of the rituals and ceremonies of baptism when Protestants began to reject the notion of baptizing infants.  In the Evangelical Covenant Church, newborns are either baptized or dedicated depending on the preference and conviction of the parents.  (PDF source) The only substantive difference is that water and the names of the Trinity are required for baptism.  Everything else proceeds on the same lines either way.  (I remember one pastor getting to the bit in the liturgy when the baptism might occur and asking the parent, "So we aren't baptizing [name of child here] today, are we?  Just making sure.  I think we can find some water.")
Dedication turns out to be more about the relationship between the child, the parents, and the church than between the child and God.  The parents dedicate themselves to raising a Godly child and the church congregation dedicates itself to assisting the parents in that endeavor.
Summary
There is no specific command to dedicate children in the Bible.  However, Jesus does say that children are part of His kingdom and so many churches have instituted public ceremonies to introduce newborn into the body of believers.


Explore and Understand on Other Religions I am kind of new here. Can Christianity allows to study other religions provided not worship any other God and Obey God's command. I understand multi religions questions seem disallow here but do let know how to edit the question cause i need some helps here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science --> Buddhism seems related to science and it's interested subject. Can i just pick up the subject relevant to Buddhism-Science only for knowledge purposes?
Buddhism has no God existence yet worship to Buddha statue is not appropriate by the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYlQ0UZ1C2I&t=87s
I try to understand other culture, avoid discrimination and learn to have mutual respect. I believe misinterpret of Word of Gospel or lack of understanding of other religions could be quite an issue.
Kindly provide some general guide what is can and what is cannot example on the matters. I am living in multi culture environment so many of culture is relevant to other religions.

God told Adam that to 'eat' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was wrong and was deadly :

...of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die. [Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 2:17]

The serpentine spirit later misrepresented those words :

... of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die. [Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 3:3]

It is neither forbidden nor fatal to 'touch' the knowledge of good and evil, that is to say to reach out and handle the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.
But it is catastrophically fatal to partake of such things - as a means of sustaining life, as a means of imbibing into oneself something in order to maintain life.

Great care must be taken in handling such things. One must realise that to 'eat' of them is absolutely dangerous and deadly.
But yes, they can be 'touched'.
Personally, I prefer not to, unless it is very necessary.


Can someone be saved if they willingly live in sin? For example, if somebody says, "Since God forgives sins, why not live a sinful life? Then when I'm dying in my bed, I'll just ask him to forgive me for my sins."
How should I respond to that person? Does God really save such people?
Some people might think this question is too general, but I am just asking what the Bible says, which would make it universal.

If a person should be aware that God forgives sins and should yet purpose to live a sinful life, then (whatever they theorise about an unknowable future) they are already in danger of perdition, of destruction and of eternal hell-fire, for the following reasons :
1. Because it is hard-hearted

To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, [Hebrews 3:15 KJV]

Scripture warns us not to harden our hearts against God's goodness. "... Despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" [Romans 2:4 KJV.]
The goodness of God in granting us a fresh day to live, another day of hope, another beat of the heart with which to function, another sun-rise giving another opportunity to pursue eternal life ... should all urge us to repentance and faith.
Not to harden our hearts, yet more and more.
2. Because it is un-believing

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. [Hebrews 10:39 KJV]

Not to proceed in one's life with faith is to not proceed at all in the direction of heaven. It is to 'draw back' as the writer to the Hebrews words it.
And such unbelief will cause even more hardening of the heart.
3. Because it is sinful.
If a person should deliberately put off repentance in favour of any other thing at all, then that course of action is, in itself, sinful.

... who were dead in trespasses and sins: ... [Ephesians 2:1 KJV]

To continue in committing deliberate misdeeds, and wilful sinful actions is to be dead to all that is good and to be alive to all that is wicked.
4. Because it is un-caring

if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. [Ezekiel 33:9 KJV]

If a person should deliberately continue to live a sinful life they are being a bad example to others. Far from helping others to repent and believe the gospel, they are purposefully setting forth an example of a wicked life and that adds to their culpability.
The thought of what one's actions do to other people is sufficient to prevent one publicly living a wicked life.
5. Because it attempts to mock God

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. [Galatians 6:7 KJV]

What we do, every day - and every hour of every day - sows seed in our own lifetime. And we shall reap what we have sown. If one should deliberately sow evil seed, knowingly, then one deceives oneself to think that one will not reap exactly what one has sown.
For God is not mocked.
6. Because it is contrary to Wisdom

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

God is not mocked. And neither shall Wisdom be so mocked.
To purposefully life a wicked life, supposing that there will be opportunity in the future  to amend one's ways is contrary to all wisdom.
It is downright foolish.
7. Because it is foolish

Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee. [Job 36:18 KJV]

But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: [Luke 12:20 KJV]

8. Because such a thought should not exist.

What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound? Let it not be.  [Romans 6:1 Young's Literal Tranlation.]

If God should be gracious to his sinful creatures and show kindness in the sending of his own Son that he might be the Saviour of the world, then the very idea of continuing to sin against him should not be in the mind of any one of them.
The thought should not even exist.
Let it not be.
9. Because others have proved it is a fatal way.
Esau presumed that, after he had lightly regarded what was of God (his heritage and his advantages) he could, on a future occasion, reverse his decision. But he was very much mistaken :

...for ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. [Hebrews 12:17 KJV]

Esau could find no place of repentance. Despite his efforts and despite his weeping tears.
The place was gone.
Another had taken his place.
And Esau was rejected.


Where is the italicization in the King James translation of the Bible from and what does it mean? Take, for example, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 in the King James version:

  For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Why is the second occurrence of the word 'thing' italicised?

Here's another example, Matthew 22:41-46:

  While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

'The Son', the second occurrence of 'man', and 'questions' - why are they italicized?

The italics indicate a word that is implied in the Hebrew or Greek. Although some people describe these as "added" words, that is not really a useful way of thinking of them. Yes, there is often ambiguity in what is implied, but there's just as much ambiguity in the explicit words. Every Bible translation accounts for these implied words, but most do not put them in italics, because that is just how translation works.

An example of implied meaning in English is when we talk about "the rich" and "the poor". We understand that those mean "the rich people" and "the poor people". There would be many languages where translating those phrases would necessitate explicitly stating that it is people we're talking about.


Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary Assuming for the moment that the Assumption of Mary is a historical event (a statement with which certainly some Christians disagree), which books of the New Testament can be considered as written after the assumption of Mary?

All of them.  Jesus was 33 when he died.  If she were 12 - 20 years old at his birth, then she would have been 45 - 53 years old at his death.  Which is quite old for people at that time.  The earliest known books of the New Testament were written around 45-55 CE.  This would have her age between 57 - 75 year old - which would not be consistent with the average age of humans in the first century.  I am assuming year 0 for Jesus' birth.  However there are reasons to suspect that his birth was as early as 6BC which would make her that much older.

Furthermore, it would have been highly unlikely that at Mary's age and potential fame, would have survived the First Jewish-Roman War. Please consider reading this article which dates the assumption no later than 70 AD.


Are the powers and authorities in Ephesians brought under Christ's rule - the same as every nation bowing in Revelation? In the book of Ephesians we see:

  far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
  Eph 1:21

  His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
  Eph 3:10

  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
  Eph 6:12

Now in Revelation we read:

  Who will not fear you, Lord,
      and bring glory to your name?
  For you alone are holy.
  All nations will come
      and worship before you,
  for your righteous acts have been revealed.
  Rev 15:4

My question is: Are the powers and authorities in Ephesians brought under Christ's rule - the same as every nation bowing in Revelation?

In Ephesians 3:10, heavenly beings in general are meant -- angels and demons. Through the church, God "teaches" heavenly beings something of God's grace and love that they never saw before.

In Ephesians 6:12, it speaks of the evil beings in the spiritual realm, demonic. It specifically distinguishes between earthly and heavenly spheres of influence, telling us that the physical battles against our faith are ultimately spiritual in origin, that satanic forces are against us, operating through earthly powers and means. Satan used the seductions of the world and the flesh in his attempt to draw Jesus from the faith in the wilderness episode in Matthew 4:1-11.

In Revelation 15:4, it's referring to earthly governments. Jesus will come again to earth, depose all earthly kingdoms and set up His own government with members of the church ruling. See Matthew 19:27-28, Revelation 2:26-27 and 20:4-6.


What is the scholarly biblical argument against theistic evolution? In Catholics and Evolution | New Advent, it seems a case might be made for theistic evolution.

The question is what is the scholarly - as opposed to personal opinion - biblical argument against theistic evolution?

Evolution defined as

  Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This
  definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene
  frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and
  large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common
  ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the
  history of life. - Source.

Theistic evolution oversimplified as being evolution with God involved.

Please see also: Theistic evolution | Conservapedia.

Last week I heard this argument, again. According to theistic evolution, millions of years took place and animals died all the time. But Genesis 1 says that after each day God pronounced it as good, therefore there must not have been death, because death is bad. And if there was no death, then millions of years of dead animals is wrong too.

Sure my simplification doesn't sound scholarly, but I'm cutting to the chase.


How much did Paul's travels cost? The Apostle Paul famously made an extensive series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean (in various company, and stopping off in some places for months or years, also getting shipwrecked at one point). These are described in Acts and in the letters.

I am curious about the rough financial cost of these travels, in terms of the means of typical first-century people. Basically, how wealthy would you have to be in order to make these trips (assuming you're paying for it all yourself)? How much support might therefore have been required from other Christians in order to finance the voyages?

I'm not after exact numbers - just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of "Paul could easily have paid for the whole thing out of his own money" to "this was a major outlay for the whole church community".

Image from Wikimedia Commons - JWooldridge CC-BY-SA

Searching the web I came across this fascinating site which allows you to enter a route and it will calculate the cost of freight and passenger transport as it was in Roman times along that route.

For example entering Antioch to Ephesus, and forcing a land route, gives you a cost of around 30 denarii to ship 1kg of wheat, and 1500 denarii for a passenger in a carriage! Remembering that a denarius is about a day's wages for a peasant, this is a not inconsiderable cost. Shipping is noticeably cheaper than land transport, and I'm guessing Paul travelled more cheaply than a passenger in a carriage, but even 50kg of wheat would cost 1500 denarii - a considerable sacrifice for those who sent him.


What is the case for interpreting the Genesis creation account literally? I think we can all agree that the entire Bible is not meant to be taken literally.  Consider the Song of Solomon (what would his lover look like if we take it literally?) or the book of Revelation.

So I would like to understand the case for believing the Genesis creation account, among all Biblical texts, is one that is intended to be interpreted literally. I'm not interested in scientific evidence for a young-earth in these answers. I'm interested in Biblical or historical reasons why this text, as a whole (as opposed to individual words), should be considered literal.

I would also discourage answers that address specific words in the Genesis account (such as the Hebrew 'yom'), but if that is the strongest evidence you have, then I won't consider it an invalid answer.

The short version is that there are many places in the Bible that quote/reference the creation account in the book of Genesis literally (Exodus 16:16, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Luke 13:14, etc).

The most obvious is the "reasoning" given for the 4th Commandment:

  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God .. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day

Furthermore, death was not introduced into creation until Adam sinned (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 5:12, 8:20-22). Without death, you cannot have fossils.

The first of the genealogies of the Bible, which starts with the first man (Adam) and goes through Noah, is given in concrete years of the age of the father when the son was born. While I suppose you could elect to say that the first 5 days of creation were figurative, certainly from day 6 on is distinctly not figurative - otherwise the reckoning of Adam's age at the birth of Seth would be irrational.


How does one explain that the Church is the Bride of Christ? Allow me to explain my view first:

  Matthew 9:15

  KJV: And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

  NIV: Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Here Jesus says the apostles are the guests.

  Matthew 25:1

  George Howard - Hebrew Gospel of Matthew: Again Jesus said to his disciples: The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins who took their lamps and went forth to meet a bridegroom and a bride.

This verse from the Aramaic scriptures tells us the virgins (we, Christians) will meet both the bridegroom and bride.

  Revelation 21:9-10

  KJV: And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Here the Angel shows John the bride, which turns out to be New Jerusalem. So all this tells me that we are not the bride but New Jerusalem is.

Now, I've heard many protestant Christians call themselves the bride. So my question is, how is this view justified with scripture?

1. Reading the Gospels as Protestants

This verse from the Aramaic scriptures tells us the virgins (we, Christians) will meet both the bridegroom and bride.

A few things here: firstly only a very small number of Protestants would accept Aramaic-primacy. It also doesn't have any relevance to this question. Just because the Greek text doesn't include "Again Jesus said to his disciples" doesn't mean that he was speaking to someone else. Moving on...
Second, when Jesus tells a parable we have to be careful to not draw too much out from it. Most parables have just one, maybe two, main points they are trying to teach. Protestants do not generally participate in allegorical interpretation where every detail corresponds to some spiritual reality.
Third, we have to note that Jesus was speaking to Jews prior to the cross. It is anachronistic to call his audience the Church or Christians. Much of what he says does of course apply to Christians, but not all. We have to carefully consider what he says in that original context before applying it to ourselves.
2. The Church as the Bride of Christ
Protestants believe this metaphor for the Church is taught in these passages:

Ephesians 5:25-27, 31-32 (NIV): Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ... “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
2 Corinthians 11:2-3 (NIV): I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

And in Revelation, John calls the Church the New Jerusalem, and then the New Jerusalem the Bride of Christ:

Revelation 3:12-23 (NIV): The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Revelation 21:2 (NIV): I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Revelation 21:9-10 (NIV): One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Note that in the Old Testament Israel is also frequently pictured as the wife of God, but Protestants differ over to whether the Church's relationship to Israel should be seen as a continuation, replacement, or parallel group of God's people.
3. Interpreting those parables

Matthew 9:14-15 (NIV): Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?”
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

In this metaphor Jesus says that, like Ecclesiastes says, "there is a time for everything". Fasting is one practice of spiritual devotion, but not the only one. Just as you don't fast during a wedding banquet, Jesus didn't think his disciples should fast while they were with him. But in the future, either while he was dead or after he ascended, it would be appropriate for his disciples to fast.
Should we make anything of the fact that his disciples are the guests rather than the bride? I don't think so, for as I wrote before, we are not allegorists who must find the spiritual parallel to every detail. But even if you do want to see a significance here, it doesn't negate the Bride of Christ metaphor. Because the New Testament uses many metaphors to describe the relationship between Christ and Church. A married couple is one, but another is that of the head and body of Christ. Are we to say that the Church is therefore married to itself because it is the body of Christ? Of course not. We don't mix metaphors; each one stands by itself to illustrate a different aspect of our relationship with God.

Matthew 25:1: At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
Matthew 25:13: Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

This parable tells us what its own meaning is: we have to watch and wait carefully for the "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" (Matthew 24:3).
I think it's possible in this parable that the virgins/bridesmaids also refer to the Jewish people, some of which were waiting eagerly for their messiah, and some of which were not.
And lastly, some Dispensationalists see Israel as an enduring category even into the New Earth. Those who died as faithful Jews before Christ are the people of God, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. If our lives after resurrection are seen as one giant wedding reception then those faithful Jews are the guests while the church is the bride. But this is a minority position within Protestantism.