What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned? Did the Nephilim that are mentioned in Genesis 6:4 do anything beyond just existing?

The Nephilim are a subject of much debate. There are a number of views on what they were, the two prominent views being the Sethite view and the Angelic view. Both are an opinion on who or what the "sons of God" are.

The Nephelim are most notably mentioned in Genesis and seem to be a driving decision to send the Flood of Noah.

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

A few things stand out in this one verse:

The "sons of God" procreated with "daughters of humans" which created the Nephilim.
They are "heroes of old, men of renown." They did fantastic things.
They were on the Earth "afterward" presumably the Flood.
This short narrative on them is right in the midst of the introduction to Noah and the Flood, hinting that they may have been a reason God brought on the Flood.

Generally, the Sethite view holds that the Sons of God were the righteous men descended from Seth; they praised and worshiped God. The daughters of men are women descended from Cain, who came from wickedness. This view contends that there is nothing particularly special about these persons and it is meant to highlight that the mixing of the righteous people of Seth with the wicked people of Cain led to further wickedness and their subsequent total destruction by the Flood.

Generally, the Angelic view holds that the Sons of God were angels or some other spiritual creatures that procreated with human women. This view contends that this act alone was wicked and an indication that these angelic beings were fallen from God's grace, therefore the offspring were inherently wicked. This view also contends that the offspring were giants and beyond human capabilities.

With both of these views, there is very little Biblical support. However, I find the suppositions and theories very interesting and even fun to research in a science fiction kind of way.

The extent to which your exact question is answered depends on which view you want to hear. From the Sethite view it pretty much stops at Goliath, if you call him a Nephilim because he was a giant. From the Angelic view, we can go all the way through Revelation. Outside of the Bible we can make many suppositions and links to mythology, but that is a bit outside of the scope of this site.

Here are some of the major points concerning the Nephilim:

Points from the scripture

A people in Canaan are later called Nephilim and giants in Numbers.
A man named Anak is listed as a forefather of them. His father is listed as Arba.
It seems that in ancient times, they also went by Anakin, Anakim, or Anakites, all clearly derivatives of the name Anak. They also went by Rephaites; that name's origin is a little less clear.
Three sons of Anak are mentioned by name as if they are still living.
Goliath was a giant; so were his four brothers. This implies that they may have been part of a nearly extinct family of giants, possibly Nephilim descendants.
Some of the Apocrypha go into detail about the Nephilim, the Book of Enoch is most notable.

Points from the Sethite View

Typically, those holding the Sethite view are not biblical literalists and do not believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations are quite naturalist.
Heroes of old is difficult to explain, but it is usually thus: being persons from both lines, the Nephilim united the two lines, setting themselves up as kings and such, and led Earth into prosperity, although at the cost of righteousness.
They were 'on the Earth afterward' is a scribal insert from the original text. The few times they are mentioned in Numbers is by exaggerating scouts; they even went so far as to call them giants. Though they may have been, the source is shaky.

Points from the Angelic View

Typically, those holding the Angelic view are biblical literalists and believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations do not hesitate anything so long as the text of the Scripture mentions it.
They were heroes because they were giants. That much we can know for sure. There are obvious advantages to being larger than everyone else. Goliath is often pointed to as evidence that the Nephilim must have been giants, too. Being half angel or something else non-human they might have had impressive abilities. They may have been able to do things that we cannot even comprehend. I have heard everything from the ability to levitate to supernatural strength to unsurpassed cunning. This easily puts them in line to seize and rule the entire Earth and become "heroes".
There have been many draws from mythology and pagan gods to the Nephilim, with some even arguing that characters like Hercules and Ra were real at least in part and were Nephilim.
A reason the Flood was decided was to wipe out the Nephilim, which were an abomination to God. The fact that some survived was reason for the flat out genocide of some of the peoples of Canaan; the Nephilim needed to be destroyed.
Some have purported that demons are the disembodied Nephilim that have perished. Demons seem obsessed with possessing persons because they are disembodied. Their soul is not like a human soul. They would surely not be allowed in heaven and perhaps there angelic abilities keep them from spiritual imprisonment elsewhere. The story of the group of demons called "Legion" in Mark 5 illustrate this.
I read a fascinating, and frankly creepy, book that connected the Nephilim with alien abductions and went on further to name them as the 2nd beast of Revelation that makes the world bow down and worship the image of the 1st beast. It is completely outlandish, but water tight once a few assumptions are taken.

Wikipedia has a fantastic article on the Nephilim, however, it seems very disorganized to me.

*I wrote an essay on the topic, but I could not find it. I did find my preliminary notes. Here they are.

The following are all the verses that are or might be related to the Nephilim.

Gen. 6:4—The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Gen. 14:5—[They] went out and defeated…the Emites[see Dt. 2:10].
Gen. 23:2—Kiriath Arba is a name for Hebron which is in Canaan.
Gen. 35:27—Kiriath Arba is Hebron
Nu. 13:28—They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendents of Anak, lived.
Nu. 13:33—We saw the Nephilim there (the descendents of Anak come from the Nephilim).
Dt. 1:28—We even saw the Anakites there.
Dt. 2:10—(about the land of Ar) the Emites used to live there—a people strong            and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites.
Dt. 9:2—(on lands across the Jordan) The people are strong and tall—Anakites!
Jos. 11:21,22—Joshua destroyed the Anakites. No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, did any survive.
Jos. 14:12—(Caleb talking) You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and            that their cities were large and fortified.
Jos. 14:15—Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba who was the                  greatest man among the Anakites (Hebron is also mentioned other times in the Bible, but long after the Anakites were all ran out).
Jos. 15:13,14—Arba was the forefather of Anak. Caleb drove out the 3 Anakites: Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai from Hebron.
Jos. 21:11—Kiriath Arba is Hebron; Arba was the forefather of Anak.
Jdg. 1:10—They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly            called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai.
Ne. 11:25—People of Judah lived in Kiriath Arba.
1 Sam. 17—The story of Goliath begins here. Goliath is clearly described as a giant. He is from Gath. This was during war with the Philistines.
1 Chr. 20:4-8 & 2 Sam. 21:15-22—In these verses we learn Goliath had a giant brother named Lahmi and was descended from Repha, though he was called a Gittite. There is also a short description of a 6-fingered, 6-toed giant Rephaite named Sippai or Saph. David is almost slain by a Rephaite named Ishbi-Benob.
1 Chr. 20:8—Seems to be the nail in the coffin for the Rephaites at Gath. Says they fell at David's hands.

The following were preliminary conclusions. They are from a biblical literalist view.

The Nephilim were a real people who lived before and after the flood. That is very clear in the Scripture. They received the name Anakites from Anak who was a descendant to Arba
who was "the greatest man among them." The land they lived in was called Kiriath
Arba, but it was later called Hebron. The mention of the Emites leads me to conclude that these people were also from the Nephilim, but perhaps their lineage was lost or unknown. Dt. 2:10 shows the confusion of who they were, but it strongly asserts that they were also large and strong people. "Rephaites" is only mentioned in passing in a few areas. It is possible, that because of confusion and different people using different names, that Anakites, Emites, and Rephaites were all the same people; it is also possible that Gittites were the same people as well. Dt. 9:2 hints that there were other tribes of people who may have been related to the Nephilim through the Anakites, or they may be directly related to the Nephilim. Perhaps like Israel, they were divided into tribes, maybe from the sons of Arba or Anak. The mention of Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai in Nu. 13:28 and Jos. 15:13,14 hints at this possibility; it is not a stretch to assume that these three persons were chiefs, kings, or some other kind of leaders fr their people. When we look at Goliath the scriptures clearly call him and his family Rephaites, who are descendants of Anakites. There are quite a few details about them, and they are all surrounded by stories of war with the Philistines. The Philistines clearly were allied with them or perhaps the Rephaites were Philistines. Considering the Philistines were eventually completely destroyed, the last of the descendants of the Nephilim were either killed or integrated into other, normal races. If there were (or are) surviving Nephilim the Bible does not explicitly record it.


What are the "signs of grief" for which a pastor should be on the look out? So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this.  I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine.  I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss.

Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief."  When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer.

While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – not just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?"

Being stuck in grief is referred to by professionals as "incomplete grief" or "complicated grief."    It is often defined as grief that is not resolving or normalizing within 6 to 12 months after the loss.

Identifying red flags may include:
* A sense of unrelenting disbelief or numbness
* Intensifying anger, rage, irritability, or agitation
* A preoccupation with distressing thoughts about the death event
* Recurrent or growing pangs of painful emotions with intense yearning and longing for the dead loved one
* Difficulty in relationships, including withdrawal or problems with intimacy
* Avoidance of situations and activities that are reminders of the loved one
* Apathy, giving up, feeling that life has no meaning or purpose
* Severe depression with hopelessness

This is an amalgamation of various lists which come up on an internet search for "stuck in grief".

References:
WebMD
Glynis Sherwood Counseling


What is the Biblical support for Hell as a singular concept? One of the common tenets of Christian Universalism (as well as Annihilationism) is the non-existence of Hell as an eternal punishment for non-Christians, that everyone has been granted salvation through grace (regardless of actual belief).  This is often supported by referencing issues of translation in the creation of the word "Hell" altogether, in the form of the claims that all places that "Hell" occurs in translations of the Greek refer to:

Sheol/Hades: the unknown, afterlife, underworld, or a grave
Gehenna: either a physical place in Israel, or a representation of burning (referred to by Universalists as a place of spiritual purification - of the Greek puros, a "refining fire")
Tartarus: warrants it's own discussion - a place where the fallen angels are kept, also present in Greek myth
Grave or pit

As a reference, there's a chart of some words selected in various translations here.  Additionally, there are often challenges of the usage of the word "eternal" in translations, as well as the concept of fire (or the Lake of Fire) being synonymous with "Hell."

Is there a basis in scripture for the concept of an eternal "Hell" for non-Christians, and how do particular denominations and groups approach the idea of an eternal "Hell"?

This is what we know of "Hell".

It's a place of darkness

Jude 1:13 (NIV)

  They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

It's a place of torment

Luke 16:28 (NIV)

  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

It's a place of fire

Jesus says in Matthew 13:42 (NIV)

  They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It is eternal

Mark 9:48 (NIV)

  where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

It is separation for God

Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

God does not want you to go to Hell

John 3:17 (NIV)

  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.


How do these parables explain time in Heaven? In many of the parables, Jesus speaks of a time span completing some event.

Examples include:

  Mark 13:34: For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

  Math 25:14: “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. Math 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.

  Luke 13:06: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”,

If God is out of time, how is he waiting to return from heaven?

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a parable and an allegory. In an allegory, there is a very close correspondence between each point of the story and the situation the author wishes to explain. If, for example, the story you point out from Luke were an allegory, then not only would the owner of the vineyard represent someone specific, but the vine dresser would represent someone else, the vineyard would represent someone or something very specific, the three years would, the manure would, and so on. I don't think that's the case for this story. Instead, the point of the story is simply that God has patience with those who do not follow him, but that this patience is not unlimited (perhaps because it will cease on Judgment Day, or on the person's death).

Similarly, as with all parables, the other ones you point out are intended to focus on a specific point; the story does not require that every single one of its elements refers to some specific real entity.

Thus, the question of whether there is time in Heaven or not is not addressed by the parables—they use images of time to get a point across, and the point is largely about what our behavior in time ought to be, not how God is affected by time.


According to the young-earth perspective, when were races created? From Genesis, God created Adam and Eve. How come we have so many races on earth if we came from the same parent? Is it because people changed physically by adapting to various climates? Or races were made when different languages were introduced in Genesis 11 vs 6-8? How can I explain the human race diversity given the literal Biblical account?

Based on the wording of your question, I assume you want a literalist/young earth creationist perspective. This isn't the only perspective in Christianity. Plenty believe in evolution, or one form of Old Earth Creationism or another. The last portion of this answer, on particular, will likely be jumped on by the OEC and Evolutionist crowds, as it's specifically a literalist/young earth creationist view.

Technically, from many Creationists point of view (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, me) there is only one "race" . The "human" race.  The idea of dividing up God's people into an artificial grouping based on superficial differences is wrong, anti-Biblical, and offensive in and of itself.

From ICR.Org

  "Race" is strictly an evolutionary concept used by (some) to rationalize
  their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! "God that
  made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood
  all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts
  17:24,26). "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
  why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?" (Malachi
  2:10).

The thinking described above is known as "scientific racism", and is generally denounced today, for good reason.

An interesting observation, taken from http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm

  The question we must first answer is: "Are there races of men?" The
  difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown. Perhaps a
  better term would be "varieties" of man. Even evolutionary science
  concludes that all existing varieties of man are members of the same
  species.2   Inter-racial marriages are common and children are
  produced with no biological difficulties. Prominent anthropologist,
  Ruth Benedict in her book, "Race: Science and Politics" stated the
  peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.3

  Once supposed biological differences, such as dissimilarity in blood, have proven to be incorrect. Blood is classified according to
  type, and all types are found within all supposed races of man. Blood
  transfusions are based on types A, B, AB, and O and are given without
  regard to race.4   It has also been supposed that different races have
  differing intelligence levels. The false and racist idea concludes
  that the Caucasian race is the most intelligent with the Negroid race
  being the least intelligent.

  ...content removed...

  Modern testing of the races has shown that intelligence is not a measurement of race, because intelligence levels differ greatly with
  individuals within every race. Further cultural influence and
  advances account for most supposed examples of differing
  intelligence. 5

The concept of "race" isn't Biblical, either.

  The next question is "Can race be Biblically defined?" The term
  race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing
  peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups
  people according to familial relationships and then into
  nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis
  10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family. It should be
  noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color.
  An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:

  "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"
  (Gen. 10:5).

The differences in skin color, hair color, curliness/straightness of the hair, and other traits that we, in our society call "different races" are minor variations. They can easily be attributed to simple genetic complexity -the same mechanism that causes my children to not look exactly like me, but similar to me, multiplied over many generations. As families became more spread out over the globe after the flood, the differences became more pronounced within the groups.


Sarah laughed at God and He did not mind When God told Abraham that he was to have a son the following year, bible recorded it that Sarah laughed in her heart

  Genesis 18:12-15

  12 Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have become old, shall I
  have pleasure, my lord being old also?”

  13 And the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I
  indeed bear a child, when I am so old?’

  14 “Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I
  will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a
  son.”

  15 Sarah denied it however, saying, “I did not laugh”; for she was
  afraid. And He said, “No, but you did laugh.”

I can see here that Sarah committed two [great] sins. 1) She mocked God  2) She called God a liar by denying she laughed.

My question is why God chose to overlook her sins and did not punish her for that?

God did not punish Sarah because:

God promised to bless Sarah, not curse her.
Sarah and Abraham seem to have laughed in a sort of prophesy, because the name of their son would sound the same as the Hebrew word for laughter.
God is merciful! Directly after this He allows Abraham to ask Him, repeatedly, not to destroy Sodom if there are any righteous people there (first 50 righteous people, then 45, 40, 30, 20, 10) and each time God agrees to have mercy, if that many righteous people should be found.

There are three instances of laughter. Here are the the relevant passages, and the notes:

  Genesis 17
  17:16 I will bless her, and I will give you a son by her. Her also will I bless; she will give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples will issue from her. 17 Abraham fell face down and laughed* as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah give birth at ninety?” 18 So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!” 19 God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.

  [17:17] Laughed: yishaq, which is also the Hebrew form of the name “Isaac”; similar explanations of the name are given in Gn 18:12 and 21:6.

  Genesis 18
  18:12
  So Sarah laughed* to herself and said, “Now that I am worn out and my husband is old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?”
  13
  But the LORD said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really bear a child, old as I am?’
  14
  Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.”
  15
  Sarah lied, saying, “I did not laugh,” because she was afraid. But he said, “Yes, you did.”

  [18:12] Sarah laughed: a play on the verb “laugh,” which prefigures the name of Isaac; see note on 17:17.

  Genesis 21
  21:5
  Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
  6
  Sarah then said, “God has given me cause to laugh,* and all who hear of it will laugh with me.

  [21:6] Laugh: for the third time (cf. 17:17 and 18:12) there is laughter, playing on the similarity in Hebrew between the pronunciation of the name Isaac and words associated with laughter.


Can you proof trinity by Jesus's words alone? Is it possible to prove the concept of Trinity from using the actual sayings of Jesus himself in the bible?

The bible teaches all over there is one God.

  “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
  Mark 12:29-30

The Father and Son are one and fully God:

  I and the Father are one.
  John 10:30

The Holy Spirit is God:

  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ... You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
  Acts 5:3-4


How do the vestments of the pontiff emeritus compare to those of a bishop emeritus? As widely reported, Pope Benedict XVI will wear "a simple white cassock without the mozzetta" during his retirement, and will no longer use the rest of the traditional pontifical regalia, such as the Ring of the Fisherman.

I was curious about how this compares with the vestments that would typically be worn by a retired bishop - either during Mass, or in everyday life. The loss of the mozzetta apparently represents the fact that Benedict no longer has jurisdiction over the See of Rome (nor the accompanying universal jurisdiction) for example; do other bishops also cease to wear the mozzetta or pellegrina when they retire?
 What about the crozier, as the former Pope will no longer be using his corresponding papal staff (ferula), or the mitre?

Previous popes who abdicated lived in seclusion (in fact Celestine V was imprisoned) so it's highly unlikely that there will be any useful or easily-available records of what they did. As Benedict XVI has said that he will do likewise, any answer must necessarily speculate. It is possible to draw on general rules, though.

The pope's priestly ordination and episcopal consecration cannot be expunged, so he is entitled to wear clothes and vestments appropriate to clergy of those ranks. Thus he will continue to wear a clerical collar and cassock, and can continue to wear a greco (long coat), tabarro (long outdoor cape) and pellegrino (short shoulder-cape). Normally the greco is white for the pope; his tabarro and pellegrino are red; everything is black for all other clergy.

Here's Bl John Paul II in a greco (from Dieter Philippi):

Here's a cardinal in a tabarro and pellegrino (ibid). He's also wearing a black cassock with red buttons and a scarlet cincture. The headgear is called a zucchetto.

Because the Pope Emeritus remains a bishop, he is entitled to the "pontificals" of a bishop in liturgical celebrations. However he does not have jurisdiction over a diocese, so will not use anything which would indicate that, such as the mozzetta (the short cape which is buttoned at the front); nor will there be a seventh candle on the altar if he is principal celebrant.

Here's a picture of a mozzetta (Dieter Philippi again). The pope's is fur-lined or fur-trimmed; other ranks are simply cloth of the colour of their rank. The difference between a mozzetta and a pellegrino is that a mozzetta is buttoned in front.

Thus it may be expected that Benedict XVI will continue to wear an amethyst1 ring, and in liturgical celebrations will wear a mitre, pectoral cross and carry a crozier. I would expect that the crozier will be used "facing backwards" — that is, with the hook facing towards himself — as that is the traditional indication that the bearer has no ordinary jurisdiction in the place. The picture reproduced below shows a bishop wearing a mitre (the hat) with a pectoral cross (on his chest) and carrying a crozier in the manner of a bishop without jurisdiction.

1 Bishops wear an amethyst ring, and purple cinctures, because amethyst in Greek means "I am not drunk". It's a reference to Acts 2:15.


Do any of the Mormon doctrines that cannot be found in the Bible come from the Book of Mormon? Do any of the Mormon doctrines that cannot be found in the Bible come from the Book of Mormon?  This is sort of a followup question to What important Mormon doctrines are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?  The answers there were along the lines of "the book of Mormon clarifies things the Bible talks about, like baptism, the fall, etc."  What I'm looking for here is not clarifications or particular interpretations that Book of Mormon might put on things that are in the Bible, but rather doctrines Mormons believe in that have no Biblical basis: Do any of them come from the Book of Mormon or do all of them come from other sources like the Pearl of a Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants? I don't have an exhaustive list, or even partial list of the doctrines I'm asking about. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is one that I've been told Mormons don't believe anymore (i.e. that God was once a man on another planet who became God by obeying his God). Since I don't know what doctrines I'm asking about (mostly because I don't know which ones Mormons still believe in and which they don't), the examples will all have to be supplied in the answers if there are any examples.

Addendum: Ok, one example might be the doctrine about "Kolob" which was asked about in Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come?  Does Kolob come from the Book of Mormon, or some other Mormon source?

...not clarifications or particular interpretations that Book of Mormon might put on things that are in the Bible, but rather doctrines Mormons believe in that have no Biblical basis

That can be a difficult distinction.
For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created...
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
2 Nephi 2:22-23

This concept (no fertility until after the Fall) is not taught in the Bible.
So is this a "new" doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon and not the Bible, or is it considered only a "clarification" of an existing Biblical doctrine?

In any case, there are many examples, so this list is not exhaustive:

There can (should) be more temples than just the Temple at Jerusalem:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon...and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.
2 Nephi 5:16

The temples of the LDS church have similarities with Solomon's temples, e.g. a basin of water on the backs of twelve oxen. This is a striking difference, as other Christian denominations do not have such temples.

Jesus existed in the form of a man even before his birth.

And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood...
Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
Ether 3:8-9,16

Parts of the Bible have been altered by men.

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record...
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
...because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble...
1 Nephi 13:24,28-29

A prophet named Joseph, whose father is named Joseph, will (has) come as Moses to convince Israel of God's word.

Yea, Joseph [son of Jacob] truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins...
And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.
...and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.
And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father...
2 Nephi 3:7,9,11,15

This is a reference to Joseph Smith Jr., the first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A portion of scattered Israel is in the Americas:

And now, behold, I would speak somewhat unto the remnant of this people who are spared...
Know ye that ye are of the house of Israel.
And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...
Mormon 7:1-2,10

These people are known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites. For this reason, the early LDS Church made efforts to convert the Native Americans (and in modern times, the LDS Church has grown quickly in Central and South America).

God will reveal additional ancient records of the Lost Tribes of Israel, beyond the Bible and Book of Mormon.

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.
2 Nephi 29:12-13

In regards to Kolob, that name is not in the Bible or Book of Mormon. It is only mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price, and in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is the star nearest to God.
And while that particular name is never mentioned in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, both teach that God's throne is the heavens.

But verily, verily, I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
3 Nephi 12:34, also Matthew 5:34

which, considering no one knows where Kolob is, is about as specific :)


How was Saul changed to Paul? Acts 13:9 (NIV) Then Saul, who was also called Paul, .....

This verse does not explain much how Saul became Paul. Who changed his name? Why was it changed?

Actually, we don't know that his name was changed at all. He may have had both names to start with as per the custom of his day as both a Jew by blood and a Roman citizen. After his conversion and change of direction he seems to have decided his other name was a better moniker.

  Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.

  Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, "circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by. But after his conversion Saul determined to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he dusted off his Roman name and became known as Paul, a name Gentiles were accustomed to.

(source: catholic.com)

The suggestion that the confusion is born out of having had multiple names from birth is born out by other sources such as Protestant writer F.F. Bruce, although his conclusion is that both names would have continued in use and it is only the preference of the NT writers in which we see a change.

  He was born into an orthodox Jewish family, and as his father was a Roman citizen, he inherited this distinction, a rare one among eastern Jews. In Jewish circles he bore the name of Saul, but in the Gentile world he was commonly known by his Roman cognomen Paullus, Anglicized as Paul [...]

  Saul’s father was a Roman citizen… [so] Saul was born a Roman citizen… As a Roman citizen, he had a Roman name, consisting of three parts: praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen.2 What his praenomen (first or personal name) and nomen gentile (family name) were we can only guess; his cognomen, however, was Paullus, by which (in its English form Paul) we usually call him.

  In family circles, however, he was known by his Jewish name Saul.

  2. The threefold Roman name may be illustrated from the full names of such famous Romans as Gaius Julius caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Cornelius Scipio.

(source: F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame)

In any event, we do not have a Scriptural source for the why and how of the name change. The most direct hint we have is the one you mention in Acts that simply notes he was "also known as". This is combined with the references to him by both names and and our own deductions from the correlation in how he was generally referred to before and after his life changing encounter with the Christ he had been persecuting.


What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection? Cornelius Van Til was the pioneer of presuppositional apologetics, and was one of the founding members of Westminster Theological Seminary. The defenses of faith that he developed sought to apply the Reformed tradition to apologetics.

With Easter almost here this year, I was wondering how Van Til would address the resurrection with unbelievers? In particular, did he use historical proofs for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection?

Presuppositional apologetics eschews using worldview-neutral facts which other types apologetics such as Evidential apologetics use as common ground for the starting point of the defense of Christianity, especially to non-believers.  So it makes sense for evidential apologetics to start with historically verifiable resurrection event.  This question wonders how would Van Til, as the father of Presuppositional apologetics, would use the Resurrection in their apologetics with non-believers.

A book chapter Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism - Acts 17:30-31 by Systematic Theology professor Lane G. Tipton published in the 2007 book Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics published by P & R shows how "presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
Cornelius Van Til" tackles precisely this challenge.

Opening quotes from the book which provides the 5 propositional structure of the strategy:

  The basic contention of this essay is that Paul’s conception of
  the resurrection as proof of final judgment in Acts 17:31b
  depends on revealed categories derived from redemptive history. This
  distinctive approach to proof places the evidential function of the
  resurrection in a redemptive-historical setting and supplies an exegetical
  line of support for presuppositional apologetics in the tradition of
  Cornelius Van Til. Five basic propositions summarize the argument
  developed in this section:

  Paul the theologian of redemptive history is Paul the apologist
  for the resurrection of Christ.
  Paul provides a covenant-historical conception of proof in 17:31,
  which rests on (a) Christ’s resurrection as an eschatological event, and (b) Christ’s resurrection as a covenantal (or solidaric) event.
  Paul refuses to separate the denotation (fact) of the resurrection
  from the connotation (meaning) of the resurrection, because
  the fact and meaning of the resurrection are covenantally and
  eschatologically qualified.
  As such, Paul’s notion of proof cannot be reduced to an ordinary,
  standard, philosophical conception of proof (e.g., based on rational
  reflection, empirical observation, or pragmatic utility), since it
  rests on revealed categories derived from redemptive history.
  Paul’s argument requires us to rethink or at least reorient
  the discipline of apologetics in light of redemptive-historical
  categories.

Conclusion:

  Paul’s argument on Mars Hill therefore lends strong support to the
  development of presuppositional apologetics. A careful analysis of his
  conception of proof gives us an opportunity to enrich apologetics in
  light of redemptive-historically regulated exegesis. As we seize that
  opportunity, the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology will
  stand in a much more organic relationship to our defense of the faith,
  and will place us in a better position to demonstrate the deep lines of
  continuity between Reformed theology and Reformed apologetics.


How did the Brownists/Calvinists justify capital punishment for witches? My ancestors were Brownist pilgrims, leading up to the Salem witch trials, my Great-great-great-something-aunt was hung for having a lack of the fear of God in her. The people at the time were no doubt very superstitious, attributing misfortunes like infant death and crop failure to devils and the supernatural, and if someone was accused of being possessed by the devil, they were often arrested, or worse...

The Mosaic law stated:

  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)

But Paul taught in Romans 7 that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ.

  "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we
  were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
  oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:5;)

Christ told his diciples to cast out devils:

  "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:
  freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt 10:8;)

If the law was fulfilled and the new command was to cast out devils, then why was there a series of executions instead of exorcisms?

In Salem Village, as in the colony at large, life was governed by the precepts of the Church, which was Calvinist. By what law did they justify capital punishment? Did the Calvinists hold to the old law even though it was fulfilled? Or did they have some other justification for executing people?

Exodus 22:18 famously says:

  Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Without a doubt, this was the basis of the belief that witches should be put to death. The Calvinist Bible commentator Matthew Henry says about this verse ("our law" refers to the law of Britain and Wales):

  Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God
  alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with
  God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting
  him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this
  world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a
  people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by
  divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law,
  consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil
  spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment,
  charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person
  whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending
  to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an
  iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.
  The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded
  here.

Matthew Henry wrote this decades after the Salem witch trials. But his argumentation is much the same as that of the English Puritan William Perkins, who I'll get to later, who died well before the trials began.

According to Puritan doctrine, as codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the law of Moses can be divided into three categories: the moral, civil, and ceremonial. According to the confession, the moral law is still binding on all Christians, but the ceremonial law, which was a shadow of Christ who was to come, is done away with. But we have a more complicated relationship with the civil/judicial law (from chapter 19):

  To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial
  laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not
  obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may
  require. [Exo 21-22; Gen 49:10; 1Pe 2:13; Mat 5:17; 1Co 9:8]

So did the general equity of the people require witches to be executed? That's the question of the day.

William Perkins, a "foremost" Puritan, gave three reasons for executing witches in his Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft:

  First, this Law of Moses flatly enjoineth all men, in all ages,
  without limitation of circumstances, not to suffer the Witch to live;
  and hereupon I gather, that it must stand the same both now and
  forever to the world's end.

Perkins then mentions the objection that this was a law of the Old Covenant, and replies:

  Those Judicial Laws, whose penalty is death, because they have in them
  a perpetual equity, and do serve to maintain some moral precept, are
  perpetual.

He adds that laws "that hath in it the equity of the Law of nature" are also perpetual, and says that all states execute traitors to the king, so how much more should one who is a traitor to the king of kings be executed.

He goes on:

  The second reason for the proof of the point in hand is this:
  According to Moses' law, every Idolater was to be stoned to death. ...
  Peter did not upon his denial betake himself to the Devil, but turned
  unto Christ again, which he testified by his hearty and speedy
  repentance: but witches deny God, betake themselves to the devil, of
  their own accord, as is manifest even by their own confessions, at
  their arraignments.

  ...

  The third reason. Every seducer in the Church, whose practise was to
  draw men from the true God to the worship of Idols, though it were a
  mans owne son or daughter, wife or friend, by the peremptory decree
  and commandment of God, was at no hand to be spared or pitied, but the
  hand of the witness first, and then the hands of all the people must
  be upon him, to kill him, Deut. 13. 6. 9. If this be so, no Witches
  convicted ought to escape the sword of the Magistrate; for they are
  the most notorious seducers of all others.

Perkins examines several objections to this line of thinking:

  the hurt that is done, comes not from the Witch, but from the devil;
  he deserves the blame because it is his work

Perkins replies to this objection with an analogy: the devil and witches are like robbers in a conspiracy. The devil is the head of the conspiracy and the chief actor, but the witches are still guilty.

Another objection:

  Witches convicted either repent, or repent not: If they repent, then
  God pardoneth their sin, why should not the Magistrate as well save
  their bodies, and let them live, as God doth their soules. If they do
  not repent, then it is a dangerous thing for the Magistrate to put
  them to death: for by this means he kills the body, and casts the soul
  to hell.

To this he replies, "the Magistrate must execute justice upon malefactors lawfully convicted, whether they repent or not," but he adds that if they repent it is "possible for them to be saved by God's mercy."

Perkins concludes by saying, among other things:

  By the laws of England the thief is executed for stealing, and we
  thinke it just and profitable; but it were a thousand times better for
  the land, if all witches, but especially the blessing Witch might
  suffer death. For the thief by his stealing, and the hurtful
  Enchanter by charming, bring hinderance and hurt to the bodies and
  goods of men; but these are the right hand of the Devil, by which he
  taketh and destroyeth the souls of men.

For some reason, dear reader, I have a feeling you're not convinced by Matthew Henry or William Perkins. Yes, their argumentation does not seem sound to our modern ears. With the benefit of hindsight we know what tragic and grave errors these men made.

However, C. S. Lewis believed that the main reason we're so repulsed by witch executions is simply that we don't believe in witches anymore, and that, if we did, we wouldn't see a problem with their execution so long as adequate evidence was presented (Mere Christianity, Chapter 2):

  One man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were
  putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human
  Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute
  witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did –
  if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold
  themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in
  return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive
  them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if
  anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.
  There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is
  simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge
  not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing
  them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man
  humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed
  there were no mice in the house.


Who said that the mere sight of devils was one of the greatest torments of hell? In Perelandra, chapter 9, C. S. Lewis writes:

  In certain old philosophers and poets he had read that the mere sight of the devils was one of the greatest among the torments of Hell.

Elsewhere in the Space Trilogy, Lewis makes specific references to John Milton and other real-world figures, so I doubt that this reference is fictional.  But he doesn't provide more detail regarding who said it.

Who might Lewis be referring to here?  Who originally said that the mere sight of devils in hell was one of its worst torments?

The most obvious reference I see comes from St. Catherine of Siena, one of the Doctors of the Catholic Church.
St. Catherine wrote a work known as the Dialogue, representing a discussion between a soul and God. In Section 22 of the Dialogue, God says this to the soul:

"[The] vision of the Devil is the third pain [of four pains suffered by those in Hell] and redoubles to them their every toil.
"As the saints exult in the sight of Me, refreshing themselves with joyousness in the fruit of their toils borne for Me with such abundance of love, and displeasure of themselves, so does the sight of the Devil revive these wretched ones to torments, because in seeing him they know themselves more, that is to say, they know that, by their own sin, they have made themselves worthy of him.
"And if you remember well, you know that I showed him to you in his own form for a little space of time, hardly a moment, and you chose (after you had returned to yourself) rather to walk on a road of fire, even until the Day of Judgment, than to see him again. With all this that you have seen, even you do not know well how horrible he is, because, by Divine justice, he appears more horrible to the soul that is deprived of Me, and more or less according to the gravity of her sin."

St. Catherine lived in the mid-14th century. It's possible that earlier philosophers or theologians made similar statements, but I have been unable to find any.


Did biblical polygamy ever involve group sex? Just to be clear, polygamy and group sex go against my conscience. I am a Christian, and I ask this question sincerely.

Polygamy is not explicitly or unambiguously forbidden in the Bible. In fact, it is regulated (see, for example, Exodus 21:10), and wise patriarchs saw no problem in marrying many women (see, for example, 1 Kings 11:3).

First, in the polygamy-practising society described in the Bible, if one were in a polygamous marriage, would group sex within that marriage be morally acceptable? Normally group sex involves committing the sin of fornication or adultery, but I do not see what sin it would be in a polygamous culture.

Second, is there any biblical, historical, or cultural grounds to think that any of the polygamists in the Bible would have actually engaged in group sex, regardless of whether their society considered it morally acceptable?

As a general rule, if a particular practice was present in a culture but considered sinful, there were commandments against it. This is the basis of a principle in historical cultural studies that if there is a law against a particular practice in the written or oral codes of a culture, then that practice did exist in the culture.
Based on the absence of any clear reference to group sex in the Bible, including the absence of any prohibition against it, it is most likely that group sex was not practiced in the Hebrew culture of the Old Testament in which polygamy was prominent.
Alternatively, it could have been practiced but not considered a sin. However, the text of the Bible generally supports the idea that men with multiple wives slept with only one of them at a time, and that this was the practice of that culture.
Here are two examples:
Leah and Rachel
The biblical patriarch Jacob had two wives: Leah and Rachel. Rachel was his preferred wife, but for many years she bore Jacob no children, while Leah did bear children for him. The story of the births of eleven of Jacob's twelve sons is told in Genesis 29:31–30:24. Within that story there is a portion that suggests that Jacob was at the time sleeping exclusively with Rachel—and that whom he slept with was an either/or proposition:

During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."
But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"
"Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."
So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.
God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. (Genesis 30:14–17)

In this story, clearly Jacob is sleeping with only one of his two wives at a time.
Lot's daughters
The story of Lot and his daughters involves incest rather than polygamy. However, it does provide another illustration of two women sleeping with the same man, but not on the same night:

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father."
That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I slept with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. (Genesis 19:30–38)

In this story the possibility of both of Lot's daughters sleeping with him on the same night is not raised. Instead they arrange to sleep with him on separate nights.
Conclusion
Based on biblical stories such as these, which involve men sleeping with multiple women, but not at the same time, and based on the absence of any specific prohibition against group sex in the Bible, it is most likely that group sex was not practiced in the polygamous Hebrew culture of Old Testament times, and that this absence of group sex in that culture continued into New Testament times as well.


To which prophets does Peter refer in 1 Peter 1:10-11? To which prophecies does Peter refer in these verses?

1 Peter 1:10,11:

  10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched
  diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

  11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
  was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings
  of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I'm looking for scriptures of prophets telling about the grace that should come unto us. I'd like to see the cross reference between the old and new testament.
I know the verses in Isaiah, but I'm looking for one or two more references.

King David in Psalm 22

  Psa 22:15-18  My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
  cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
  (16)  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
  inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.  (17)  I may tell all
  my bones: they look and stare upon me.  (18)  They part my garments
  among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

and less directly

  Psa 2:1-3  Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
  thing?  (2)  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
  take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed,
  saying,  (3)  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their
  cords from us.


How do you obtain spiritual gifts? (Overview) The Bible says we should covet earnestly the best spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31). How do various denominations recommend obtaining spiritual gifts?

Ask God.
So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Luke 11:9-10

The spiritual gifts are gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something one asks God for.
And gifts have a purpose and direction in ministry.  By pursuing needs one finds God provides an answer.

All evangelical denominations have versions of this, some emphasising the more attribute gifts, of love, patience, endurance, joy, peace, while others say gifts of healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues is important.

All focus on dwelling more in God, in scripture, in seeking to help others.
Some emphasis holiness, and purity, while others listening to the right preachers and teaching.


How did Luther view relics, like the 'preserved head of John the Baptist'? According to wiki

Roman Catholic tradition holds that the head on display in San Silvestro in Capite in Rome is that of John the Baptist, discovered for the second time, as also maintained by Pope Benedict XVI in August 2012.

What the Pope said:

The pope also spoke about a fragmented piece of St. John's head that is kept as a relic in the Church of Saint Sylvester in Rome.
“In the Roman Martyrology, reference is made to a second finding of the precious relic, transported, on this occasion, in the church of San Silvestro in Rome. These little historical references help us to understand how how and deeply St. John the Baptist is venerated.”

There is also some similar Islamic tradition about this relic mentioned there.
My question is what did Martin Luther think about the 'preserved head' and other equally impressive holy relics?

Luther clearly thought all relics were ridiculous nonsense and evidences of a very degraded sense of spiriituality.

   “It is claimed that the head of St. John the Baptist is in Rome, although all histories show that the Saracens opened John’s grave and burned everything to powder. Yet the pope is not ashamed of his lies. So with reference to other relics like the nails and the wood of the cross—they are the greatest lies.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.131)

Furthermore, at the time of Luther, the superstition surrounding relics seems to have really been highly imaginative that only an unspiritual mind could ever conjure:

  “Certain men have impudently boasted that they possess a feather from the holy angel St. Michael. The bishop of Mainz claims to have a flame from the bush of Moses. So in Compostella the banner is exhibited that Christ had in hell, and likewise the crown of thorns, the nails, etc., and also some of Mary’s milk.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.247)


According to Old Testament, how long did Saul reign as king? According to Old Testament scripture, how long did reign Saul as king of Israel?
Various hebrew scholars list this time between 7 and 20 years.  Where does this variation come from?

The variation comes from missing digit(s) in the extant Hebrew manuscripts for 1 Sam 13:1.  Dr. Michael Heiser's 2008 blog article about it, 1 Samuel 13:1 – The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible, summarized the problem well:

The Masoretic Text (MT) literally says “Saul was a son of a year in his reigning and two years he reigned over Israel.” Obviously there are two errors in the Hebrew text as we have it today: (1) Saul was not one year old when he became king, and (2) he reigned more than two years.
The first error is obvious, since the book of 1 Samuel tells us plainly how Saul was chosen and anointed king — and he was a full grown man. The second error is plain when viewed against Acts 13:21 (and when reading the account of Saul’s kingship in the OT).
Now, in one regard, this is no different than any other text-critical problem. You detect the error in the present text, then work to find out how it came about, and consult other manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible for the solution. But there’s the rub — in the case of 1 Sam 13:1, there are no other reliable manuscript readings.

Unfortunately, none of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments related to the Book of Samuel has 1 Sam 13:1.  See 1984 paper Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts by Stephen Pisano, S.J.
The entire verse was also missing from earlier copies of the Septuagint.  Some later copies have 30 but deemed as corruption and therefore modern translations of Septuagint omit this verse, such as Chapter 13 of the NETS Septuagint translation.  See Dr. Michael Heiser's blog article referred to above for more discussion on this, as well as this article.
To reflect the missing information some translations, such as the NRSV, render 1 Sam 13:1 as follows:

Saul was . . .  years old when he began to reign; and he reigned . . .  and two years over Israel.

with the footnote:

1 Samuel 13:1 The number is lacking in the Heb text (the verse is lacking in the Septuagint).

Another blog article Rereading 1 Samuel 13:1 by Claude Mariottini, a
Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary provides a good explanation why translations differ:

The different readings for the length of Saul’s reign in the translations are only possibilities.  Thus, if a translation says that Saul was 30, or 40, or 50 years old when he began to reign and then says that he reigned 42, 32, 22, or 2 years over Israel, that translation is not teaching biblical truth but educated possibilities.  The fact is, that since the numbers are contradictory, then one or all of the translations may not be presenting the right information.

In Acts 13:21 we have 40 years, see Acts 13:21, NRSV:

²⁰ ... After that he gave them judges until the time of the prophet Samuel. ²¹ Then they asked for a king; and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years.

Possibly, St. Paul quoted a Septuagint manuscript that is no longer extant.  Or he may have relied on Josephus who said in Antiquities of the Jews — Book VI:

To this his end did Saul come, according to the prophecy of Samuel; because he disobeyed the commands of God about the Amalekites; and on the account of his destroying the family of Ahimelech, the High Priest, with Ahimelech himself; and the city of the High Priests. Now Saul, when he had reigned eighteen years,²² while Samuel was alive; and after his death two, [and twenty,] (35) ended his life in this manner.

Finally, yet another article tries to deduce the reign length of Saul from implications it has on other characters's ages: Judges: The reign-length of Saul.  The article recommends between 10-20 years and instead suggests one possibility: clause placement corruption in Acts 13:21 and that Paul meant it was David who reigned for 40 years.


Why did God want a Tabernacle built by Moses? Is there a biblical basis why God wanted a Tabernacle to live among Israel (Exodus 25:8)?

  And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.  Exodus 25:8 ESV

What is the significance of the Tabernacle built by Moses?

To accomplish God's desire to make his abode among his people, [...]. He wanted to walk among them, be their God, and they his people1.

1. cf. Lev 26:11-12 (RSVCE).

Please see also this Moses' intercession [cf. Exod 33:14-16]:

  14 And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you
  rest.” 15 And he said to him, “If thy presence will not go with me, do
  not carry us up from here. 16 For how shall it be known that I have
  found favor in thy sight, I and thy people? Is it not in thy going
  with us, so that we are distinct, I and thy people, from all other
  people that are upon the face of the earth?”

Summarizing the reasons that appear:

It was God's wish.
So that God might make his abode among his people, walk with them and be their God, and they his people.
In response to Moses' intercession.
God's continual presence would distinguish his people from all other people.


Perpetual virginity of Mary: why did Mary see "not knowing man" as an obstacle to the conception of Jesus? It seems rather incontrovertable from the logic (Luke 1):

You will concieve and bear a son
How shall this be, since I know not man

That Mary sees it as impossible to conceive, specifically because she does not have intercourse with anyone. Meaning the present condition, her virginity, which precludes conception, is seen as not going to change (to allow the conception and make the objection meaningless and invalid).

Question

For those who deny that Mary ever intended to remain a virgin her whole life, how is this refuted?

Thanks in advance.

ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο -επει- ανδρα ου γινωσκω
Luke 1:34 - TR (Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.)
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? KJV

The Greek conjunction ἐπεί epei (see Strong 1893) cannot be manipulated into meaning something with regard to a time sequence in the future. The force of the word is 'because' or ' for the reason that'. Note that the KJV quite correctly renders the conjunction as a present participle.
"How shall I bear a child in my situation of not (presently) knowing a man ?"
. . .  is all that can possibly be construed from the Greek wording .
[ There is a disputed translation of Luke 7:1 (see interlinear) where epei is rendered 'and when' but the meaning has the force of 'and for the reason that he had completed ...'. It is not a future consequence but, here in Luke 7:1, epei conveys a decision made upon a completed situation. ]
As to Mary's words in Luke 1:34, The Douay-Rheims also correctly renders the conjunction (from the Latin Vulgate) using the very apposite English conjunction 'because':

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

However the D-R then mis-translates ανδρα (from aner - an identifiable man) and renders it as though it was ἄνθρωπος (anthropos - humanity). This may be a fault of the Latin-from-Greek translation of the Vulgate or it may be a fault of the English-from-Latin translation thereafter.
'Know not man' is quite inappropriate, here. It should be 'know not a man', meaning a particular man. Only an impossibly travelled harlot would know anthropos. Broadening the meaning of 'a man' to 'mankind' in no way strengthens an argument for perpetual virginity.
This attempt to extend Mary's utterance in perpetuity has resulted in very inappropriate English words being put into her holy lips with regard to humanity.
Mary was already espoused to Joseph before Gabriel appeared to her (see Luke 1:27 - ... to a virgin espoused to a man ... ). Hardly the action of a woman who intends, in perpetuity, to remain a virgin. But, having not (yet) come together (Matthew 1:18), she did not (at that stage) know a man.

What is much more relevant regarding the certainty of the situation is Matthew's wording in Matthew 1:24, 25 :

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. [KJV]

Had Matthew wished to convey - without a trace of ambiguity - that Mary had remained a virgin thereafter, Matthew would have stopped writing after 'knew her not'.

... and took unto him his wife and knew her not [Full Stop]

Thereafter he would have made a new sentence regarding the name of Jesus.
But he does not do that, he continues :

... until she had brought forth the son of her (in literal) ...


Why do 21st century Protestants still not include the deuterocanonical books in the canon? Given the Protestant motto semper reformanda and the doctrine of sola scriptura which in essence strives to purify Christian teaching to be based only on the Word of God interpreted through the lens of the 12 apostles, what is preventing Protestants today from including the Catholic deuterocanonical books back into the canon when it can be shown:

How the NT writers did make allusions to those books
How recent research showed how the NT writers relied on the Septuagint's version of the underlying Hebrew OT vs. the Masoretic text
Appeal to what Judaism itself consider as canon (i.e. 39 books) is irrelevant because Christianity should have its own hermeneutic, especially when the Septuagint text could be shown as less tainted by errors now.
How the two highly voted answers for the question "Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?" fails to show a good reason for their exclusion from the Protestant canon because none of the reasons mentioned are derived from sola scriptura:

Luther and Calvin were motivated to either diminish or eliminate the deuterocanonical books to exclude scriptural support for Catholic doctrines
Appeal to St. Jerome's concern of the reliability of Septuagint has since been reversed after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (see 2nd point above)
Synod decision post Luther & Calvin should in principle be re-evaluated when the apostles can be shown to rely on Septuagint more than what was known 400-500 years ago

500 years have passed since the violent and emotional schism.  Both the Protestant and Catholic sides, especially in the academia, have since understood each other much better and became much less polemical.  In the past 100 years the trend for both sides is to dig deeper into each NT author's 2nd temple Judaism worldview to better inform our understanding of the NT books, which is clearly also in the spirit of sola scriptura.

Of course, one obvious reason is because the Catholic church had developed doctrines unacceptable to Protestants based on those books, like Purgatory, indulgences, etc.  But if Protestants use proper hermeneutic to guard against "overzealous" interpretation of those deuterocanonical books (such as by controlling interpretation to what only the 12 apostles taught in the 27 NT books), why not include them in the canon?

What makes this question different from previous questions such as this one is the 21st century context because in principle Protestants are not bound by past decisions (per semper reformanda principle), but bound only by what the NT authors taught (sola scriptura).

Therefore, my question asks for a 21st century argument for rejection based on those 2 principles (semper reformanda and sola scriptura) which should not include polemics and outdated Masoretic text / St. Jerome argument as in the answers of the previous question.

Another way of stating the question (positively): given 1) fresh discovery in the 20th century into Jesus and the 1st generation apostles's OT background (such as the texts they use) and 2) given Protestants's commitment to the semper reformanda and sola scriptura principles, what criteria does it take for Protestants to include back the deuterocanonical books that they rejected 500 years ago in order to fulfill their ad fontes ideal of being faithful to the original revelation?

Because Protestants do not believe that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have borne witness to them that those texts are inspired scripture.

The Westminster Confession (1646) has a fascinating paragraph where it lists off many of the characteristics that set scripture apart from other writings, before dismissing them all to say that the ultimate reason we are persuaded that the scriptures are inspired is the inward work of the Holy Spirit and Christ in the lives of believers, witnessing to us.

  WCF 1.5: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;
   and the heavenliness of the matter,
   the efficacy of the doctrine,
   the majesty of the style,
   the consent of all the parts,
   the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God),
   the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation,
   the many other incomparable excellencies,
   and the entire perfection thereof,
  are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;
  yet, notwithstanding,
  our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,
   is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit,
   bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The same idea is present in the Belgic Confession (1559):

  Article 5: We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical,
  for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

  And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them—
  not so much because the church receives and approves them as such
  but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God,
  and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

  For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Now of course as sinful humans we can ignore the work of the Spirit and Christ. But let's consider another example of an issue where I think the Spirit is surely trying to convince the Church about the truth of a matter: infant baptism. For centuries Protestantism has been divided over whether or not infant baptism is a good practice. Individual Christians sometimes switch from one camp to the other, in part I'm sure because of the work of God. It is the Spirit who helps us interpret the scriptures (WCF 1.6) and yet we have not come to an agreement over what the scriptures teach about baptism. Is that because we hold too tightly to our traditions to hear what the Spirit is saying? Perhaps for some people, but for others it appears that, if they are switching camp from falsehood to truth (whichever direction that really is), they are heeding the voice of the Spirit.

What about for the canon? There is no major group of Protestants who believe the dueterocanon is inspired, there is not even a minor group. I can't even think of any notable individuals who have said this. Over five centuries have hundreds of millions, possible billions, of Protestants all tuned out the Spirit's witness to the authority and inspiration of those texts? That does not seem plausible to me. We know that the Spirit has been a witness to the authority of the scriptures because we Protestants fully recognise James as scripture despite our founder Luther's reticence to do so. Instead I must conclude that the Spirit has not been witnessing because those texts are not inspired.


If I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven? When packing for a trip, sometimes we forget something small: a toothbrush, shaving cream, or socks. In order to compensate, we simply make a quick pit stop at a nearby convenience or department store to buy a replacement for the missing item.

Can confession work similarly?

My Question:

According to Catholic teaching, if I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?

If you think about it, it would probably be much better to confess your sins to God than any human on planet Earth.

Catholic teaching states that you must make a sincere effort to confess all mortal sins in the sacrament of confession. It is often encouraged that all grave sins be confessed as soon as possible, and certainly all mortal sins. However, if the sinner is unable to confess before death, the effortful intent to confess is taught to be valid, provided it is a sincere and effortful intent!

It is also the Catholic Church's teaching God normally works through the sacraments of the Church, but that God is not at all inhibited from working outside them.

And as an important side-note, if the recipient of confession is not sincere, even in making an act of confession, the confession is not valid.


Was there a reason Jesus came at the time he did? Concerning what the Bible says, and what might be said in commentary from prominent church leaders, is there a particular reason Jesus came 2000 years ago and not at some other time. One would think the earlier, the better.

If the question seems too broad, then just give me biblical support.

Was there a reason Jesus came at the time he did?

The short answer is "yes" – there is nothing accidental about how the key events in the Bible timeline unfold. This is evident in Acts 41 for example:

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. ESV

I'm going to recast your question as "Explain how the timing of the incarnation fits with God's overall plan revealed as revealed in scripture"

Before answering I'm going to refute, or at least demote, some of the common answers to this question:

"The Pax Romana and great road system allowed the Gospel to spread"
The gospel spread predominently by sea, and sea travel wasn't new. The Gospel was competing with any number of other religions and ideologies and its successful spread as outlined in Acts is explained only by the miracles2 that accompanied the evangelists. The power of Rome was important however, as I will explain later.

"The common Greek language allowed the Gospel to spread"
Language was no barrier to the Holy Spirit3. In any event lingua francas have developed around the world throughout human history, Greek being just the current example in the 1st century.

God's overall plan, and how the timing of the incarnation fits in:

What went wrong in the garden?
Adam and Eve disobey God, yes, but more importantly they distrust God:

17And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; ESV

God's purpose in Bible history is not just to display his glorious forgiveness for this crime of failing to believe Him (which logically, He could have done straight away). It is also to prove that He is, in the final reckoning, right, and the lies are indeed false4. Everything that follows can be seen in this overarching context.

The purpose of the curse
The curse includes pain, sweat, conflict and especially death5. This is for a reason, and it is not just punishment: God will do all it takes to bring mankind back, never to doubt Him again. It has to be a long and difficult road, because every opportunity to blame God or to try and remake the world in our own image has to be exhausted before we will know forever and beyond doubt that He is 'the God of truth'.

Fix the outside (1), the flood
Left to their own devices, the wickedness of man increases6. God intervenes again and again – but each time a different lesson is learned. With the flood, God shows that the problem of wickedness cannot be addressed by washing it all away and starting again, because it is not a problem of society, culture or history. The problem is much deeper, in the heart7. As Noah steps onto the land that has been washed clean, he brings sin with him8.

Fix the outside (2), the law
The law brings another lesson: rules, however good and perfect, don't provoke an unrighteous man to righteousness. You simply cannot reach the human heart from the outside9.
The history of Israel after the giving of the law is a litany of its failure to make the nation righteous, from the cesspool of Judges until the circle is complete and they return to exile. Only after the return from exile is there a spark of hope: the open idolatry of the past is banished and a religion that purports to worship God begins10, but this too is a lie that must be exposed.

Twin Peaks: The Pharisees and Rome
Rome is like Egypt and Babylon before it: a symbol of the heights of human power and authority. That this empire should be conquered by the Gospel, and more importantly the manner of this conquest, is highly significant. God has demonstrated his power to humble the most powerful human rulers before, by smashing them with raw force11, or driving them to eat grass 'like an ox', but it is Rome's heart that is broken, not her right arm.
By contrast, the Pharisaic religion represent the pinnicle of human evil, in that it is the biggest lie. From the outside everything looks good, but nothing has changed within: worship is from the mouth not the heart12. Jesus' arrival is coincident with this peak of self-righteousness and he never holds back from denouncing it: he takes every opportunity to attack their hypocrisy13. What is inside the 'whitewashed tombs' must be revealed, and sure enough, the spitting hatred for God that lurks beneath the surface comes boiling out14 as these respectable religious folk conspire with their hated oppressors to kill the one who tells the truth in order to silence him.

So, Jesus came as just the right time: the events past were all that was needed to reveal the futility of every sort of lie and rebellion. The peak of both religious and idolatrous lie-worship had arrived and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus both exposed the lies, and laid open the way back to God for those who now choose truth.

1 See also Isaiah 46 and many other places in scripture.
2 For example, see how the great excitement of the crowds in Lystra in Acts 14 was a response to an extrodinary miricle. Paul elsewhere calls signs and wonders and mighty works evidence of apostleship.
3 See Acts 2:5-13.
4 The new man in the new creation will thus never fall again: he knows that God is to be trusted in a way that Adam could not: from the past. There is no form of rebellion that has not been tried already, and shown to be nothing but false promises and foolish vanity.
5 See Genesis 2:17, 3:3 and 3:19; the repetition imbues emphasis.
6 See Genesis 6:12
7 This is Peter's understanding of the flood: Baptism corresponds to the washing of the flood, but not at the level of removing dirt from the outside (i.e. the body) but acting on the inside where the conscience operates.
8 See Genesis 9:20-27
9 See Galatians 3:21
10 See 'let us make a covenant with our God' in Ezra:10. Ezra is unaware of the bitter irony of Israel re-committing itself to God and promising anew to keep His law. This verse is often read in a positive light but to do so is to completely miss the big picture of the Bible narrative; the seeds of the biggest and worst lie are being sown.
11 See Exodus 9:16
12 Isaiah forsaw this (Isaiah 29) and it was fulfilled in Jesus time (Mark 7:6): not a coincidence!
13 The list of examples is long. Jesus spoke of no other group like this: Gentiles, tax collectors and prostitutes were treated with gentleness. Though their sin was not condoned, they were not beyone the help of the 'physician'.
14 See the show-trial of Matthew 26:67-68.


What Protestant/Evangelical tradition is represented in the Casting Crowns song "What the World Needs"? I hadn't the song "What this World Needs" before today, although it's 10 years old - guessing it didn't get much air play on the Christian Radios.
I'm wondering if it has something to do with this part where a bunch of children speak in montage/cut-up PSA format:

People aren't confused by the Gospel.
They're confused by us.
Jesus is the only way to God, but we are not the only way to Jesus.
This world doesn't need my tie, my hoodie, my denomination or my interpretation of the Bible.
They just need Jesus.
We can be passionate about what we believe, but we can't strap ourselves to the Gospel, because we are slowing it down.
Jesus is going to save the world, but maybe the best thing we can do is just get out of the way.
Casting Crowns - What this World Needs / Copied from Metro Lyrics

What part of Christianity believes this and why?  As a Catholic, I find these statements to be the antithesis of my religion and almost fighting words.   Don't most Christians want to "be Jesus for others" or at the very least "bring Jesus" to others?  This sort of Christianity seems to me to be passive or even nihilistic and I'm wondering further if this is a real way of looking at Christianity and the Bible or if it's a fad.

I neither know nor do I care as to which denomination of Evangelical Protestantism these young people belong to.  The partial quote you gave does not represent Protestant Christianity, and is merely a reflection of their own, personal views.  However, I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of the song:

  “What this world needs is not another one-hit wonder with an axe to grind, another two-bit politician peddling lies, another three-ring circus society
  What this world needs is not another sign-waving super- that thinks he's better than you, another ear-pleasing candy man afraid of the truth, another prophet in an Armani suite
  What this world needs is a savior who will rescue, a spirit who will lead, a father who will love them in their time of need ; A savior who will rescue, a spirit who will lead, a father who will love, that's what this world needs (Chorus)
  What this world needs is for us to care more about the inside than the outside. Have we become so blind that we can't see? God's gotta change your heart before he changes a shirt
  What this world needs is for us to stop hiding behind our relevance, blending in so well that people can't see the difference, and it's the difference that sets the world free”

The two lines I disagree with are these: “we can't strap ourselves to the gospel 'cause we're slowing it down; Jesus is going to save the world but maybe the best thing we can do is just get out of the way.”  That’s a load of trite rubbish, and a distortion of the need to evangelise the gospel to all.

Please do not think for one moment that these sentiments are representative of Protestants – evangelical or not!   Personally, I much prefer the good old-fashioned hymns, especially those written by Charles Wesley.  They actually contain biblical truth (as perceived by Protestants, anyway).  Can’t be doing with all this happy-clappy, stand up and wave your hands in the air stuff accompanied to music so loud you can’t even hear yourself think.  I don’t consider that to be worship.  But then, what do I know, given I was born shortly after the end of the Second World War?  Bah, humbug!

Source: Casting Crowns-What This World Needs (2007) – Genre: Christian/Gospel - Songwriters: Hector Alonzo Cervantes / John Mark Hall – Album: The Altar and the Door - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Casting+Crowns+song+What+the+world+needs&oq=Casting+Crowns+song+What+the+world+needs&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.8209j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


How did the Christian movement distinguish itself from Judaism? Can anyone explain to me how Christianity distanced itself from Judaism and set itself apart?

In 70 CE, Second Temple Judaism came to an abrupt and traumatic end, with the destruction of the Temple and the enslavement of many leading Jews. Randall Price says in The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 137 (citing Dr. Lawrence Schiffman):

  Second Temple Judaism can now be seen as a transition period in which the sectarianism and apocalypticism of the period gradually gave way to rabbinic Judaism, on the one hand, and Christianity, on the other.  Indeed, it is now clear that the Second Temple period was a kind of sorting out process.

John Dominic Crossan agrees, saying in The Birth of Christianity, page xxxiii, that it is not really accurate to say that Christianity eventually broke away from  Judaism. He goes on:

  It is more accurate to say that, out of that matrix of biblical Judaism and that maelstrom of late Second-Temple Judaism, two great traditions eventually emerged: Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Each claimed exclusive continuity with the past, but in truth each was as great a leap and as valid a development from that common ancestry as was the other.  They are not child and parent; they are two children of the same mother.

Christianity and rabbinic Judaism were picking up the pieces in 70 CE and, although competitors for the hearts and minds of those who had followed the former Second Temple Judaism, it was in the interests of neither to attack the other. In its early days, Christianity did not choose to distinguish itself from rabbinic Judaism, with Christians regularly attending the synagogues set up and controlled by rabbinic Judaism. It was eventually rabbinic Judaism that initiated the break, banning Christians from the synagogues in the 90s of the first century, probably in response to the increasing anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Christian movement and the refusal of gentile Christians to undergo circumcision. John Shelby Spong says, in Born of a Woman, page 65, the liturgy of the synagogues was reformulated by 85 CE to attack heretics, and the Christian Jews were finally expelled.

Everett Ferguson says in Backgrounds of Early Christianity, page 461-2, Gemaliel's grandson, Rabban Gamaliel II (active 80-120), introduced into the Eighteen Benedictions, the curse which effectively excommunicated Christians:

  “Let the Nazarenes and the heretics perish as in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous."


Who was Jasher, the author of a book referenced in the bible? Who was Jasher?  Are there any historical references Jasher other than Author of a book referred in the bible?

Nobody knows who the original author of the Book of Jasher was, although it is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 and in 2 Samuel 1:18-27.  Neither has the original manuscript survived.
What we do know is that it was also known as the “Book of the Upright One” in the Greek Septuagint and the “Book of the Just Ones” in the Latin Vulgate.  The Book of Jasher was probably a collection or compilation of ancient Hebrew songs and poems praising the heroes of Israel and their exploits in battle. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 when the Lord stopped the sun in the middle of the day during the battle of Beth Horon. It is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18-27 as containing the Song or Lament of the Bow, that mournful funeral song which David composed at the time of the death of Saul and Jonathan.
There is a book called “The Book of Jasher” today, although it is not the same book as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is an eighteenth-century forgery that alleges to be a translation of the “lost” Book of Jasher by Alcuin, an eighth-century English scholar. There is also a more recent book titled “The Book of Jashar” by science fiction and fantasy writer Benjamin Rosenbaum. This book is a complete work of fiction.
Another book by this same name, called by many “Pseudo-Jasher,” while written in Hebrew, is also not the “Book of Jasher” mentioned in Scripture. It is a book of Jewish legends from the creation to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, but scholars hold that it did not exist before A.D. 1625. In addition, there are several other theological works by Jewish rabbis and scholars called “Sefer ha Yashar,” but none of these claim to be the original Book of Jasher.
Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article on the Sefer haYashar, or the Book of the Upright:

Sefer haYashar (ספר הישר) is a medieval Hebrew midrash, also known as the Toledot Adam and Divrei haYamim heArukh. The Hebrew title "Sefer haYashar" might be translated as the "Book of the Correct Record" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. Its author is unknown.

The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.  Although it is presented as the original "Book of Jasher" in translations such as that of Moses Samuel (1840), it is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism, nor does the original Hebrew text make such a claim. It should not be confused with the very different Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) printed by Jacob Ilive in 1751, which was purported to have been translated by the English monk Alcuin. It should also not be confused with an ethical text by the same name, which, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 14, p. 1099, was "probably written in the 13th century."

The Bible twice quotes from a Sefer haYashar, and this midrashic work includes text that fits both Biblical references - the reference about the Sun and Moon found in Joshua, and also the reference in 2 Samuel (in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint) to teaching the Sons of Judah to fight with the bow. This appears in Jasher 56:9 among the last words of Jacob to his son Judah: Only teach thy sons the bow and all weapons of war, in order that they may fight the battles of their brother who will rule over his enemies. (MCR)

But the book as a whole was written much later - as shown by chapter 10, covering the descendants of Noah, but containing medieval names for territories and countries, most obviously Franza for France and Lumbardi in Italia for Lombardy. The text of this chapter closely follows the beginning of Josippon, a tenth-century rabbinic text that lists the various peoples living in Europe in ca. 950.  Source: Sefer haYashar (midrash)

Based on the Hebrew used and other indicators, it seems that this work was written in Naples in the early 16th century, probably by a Jew who lived in Spain or southern Italy.  Nothing is known of the man who wrote the original book of Jasher, possibly some 4,000 years ago.


According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation, where did the Father live as a man? According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation (the Father was once a man who was exalted by his Creator to Godhood as Christ is exalted by the Father), did the Father live on this Earth at a previous time, on another planet in this cosmos, or in a previous cosmos that we are unable to observe?

God the Father, Elohim, dwelt as a man prior to the existence of the observable universe.

It was by His power that the known cosmos were formed and organized. He did not live as a man on Earth, or on any planet which exists within the known universe, because it was by his power that the known universe was created, the first creation being Kolob, the star nearest to the place where God the Father dwells:

  Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the
  residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the
  measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time,
  which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is
  equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth,
  which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh (see Facsimile 2).

Facsimile 2:

Most of what we know about the greater universe comes from Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. We have not received any other source of information which gives us any more clues as to the mysteries of our eternal celestial heritage (see The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book).