How did the church calculate Sunday as the day of the resurrection? By my reading of the Gospel accounts of Jesus rising from the grave on the third day, and the Crucifixion being on Friday (with Jesus’ body being released Friday evening before sundown to allow compliance with Jewish law about Sabbath burial), and doing the math based on those factors, I keep coming back to Monday as the day of resurrection. If Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is one day, then Saturday to Sunday evening would be the second day, and this leaves Monday as the third day. I’ve never been able to get a real answer to this question and it seems that there are quite a few people on here with extensive Biblical knowledge so I thought I’d see whether anyone can make sense of it.

There are a couple of facets to the answer.
First of all, the Gospels themselves attest that the Resurrection occurred (or, at any rate, was discovered) on the “first day of the week”:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb (Mt 28:1).
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him (Mk 16:1).
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. (Lk 24:1).

The Sabbath is our Saturday, and it was considered the last, or seventh, day of the week. (See Gen. 2:2.) Therefore, the “first day of the week,” when the Resurrection is reported to have taken place, is the next day, our Sunday.
Secondly, the Jews, then as now, reckoned their days from sundown to sundown, rather than from midnight to midnight (as the O.P. points out). (For this, see Lev. 23:32, as well as “The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection”.)
Finally, when computing time, the Israelites generally would count any part of a day as a full day, even if that part was very small. (Among many examples of this way of reckoning, the Jewish way of saying “a week later” was to say “in eight days,” as, for example with regard to circumcision “on the eighth day.” See Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3; Lk. 1:59 and 2:21.)
Hence, Jesus was crucified on the Parasceve (the Day of Preparation, or Friday) before sundown (see, e.g. John 19:14); he lay in the tomb through the entire Sabbath; and he rose early Sunday morning, as we saw above. That, in the Jewish reckoning, works out to three days.
In other words, where the O.P. lost count is that “day one” would actually be the few hours between Jesus’ death and burial and the beginning of the Sabbath on Friday evening.


Eastern Orthodoxy: what is the difference in character between each of the 8 modes? What are each of the 8 modes/tones in the Eastern Orthodox traditions (especially the Byzantine Chant and Russian Chant traditions) meant to convey in terms of spiritual posture, attitude, character, and even theme and dogma?

I know there's a lot to say about each musical tradition, so I want this question's focus to be distinctly, what are the distinguishing features of each mode or tone that set it apart from the others in terms of the spiritual attitude and lessons it is trying to convey (I'm not asking here about the musical theory and rules behind the modes themselves, although I would like to hear explanations of musical rules in terms of how they are used to convey spiritual attitudes and truths).

Byzantine Modes

What does each individual mode convey? What are the goals of expression?

First, I have to explain one small part of the music. Modes 1-4 in Byzantine music, are each a unique scale, while modes 5-8 are a derivation of such, being called Plagal modes. Most often the modes are called 1st-4th mode, and then Plagal First mode, Plagal Second mode, Grave Mode, and Plagal Fourth mode. I won't go into why 7th is called Grave mode since that would probably bring in too much music theory. At times and in my sources you might also see the modes called 1st-8th tones. I won't go into that either; suffice it to say some think mode is a better translation of ἦχος while others think tone is. I'm going to stick with modes and use the plagal names.
(Savas 42)

Second, just as a good place to start, I'm going to group the modes into their families:

Diatonic: contains 1st mode, Plagal 1st, 4th, and Plagal 4th.
Chromatic: contains 2nd and Plagal 2nd mode.
Enharmonic: contains 3rd and Grave Mode.

These three families were

  formed by diverse Greek peoples according to the character of each of them. [They were] used by the church in its music, as agreeing wholly with the spirit (pneuma) and character of Christianity. (Savas 41)

It may not have been entirely necessary to group them like that, but I think it groups the overall qualities of the modes as you'll see below, and explains origins a little as well.

Characters of the modes

OK, now while there's no dogmatic character quality for each mode, the general character of the modes can be determined to a point. According to Savas I. Savas (from 53):

Diatonic Modes

1st mode is distinguished by its axiomatic, magnificent, happy and earthly character
Plagal 1st mode is distinguished by its merciful, stimulating and dancing-like character
4th mode is distinguished by its festive, dance-like, and joyous character
Plagal 4th mode: the humble style, the appeasing, the sufferings distinguish this mode

Chromatic Modes

2nd mode is distinguished by its moving, languid, and graceful character
Plagal 2nd mode is distinguished by its funeral-like character and in general its sorrowful tone

Enharmonic Modes

3rd mode is distinguished by its arrogance, bravery, and mature air
Grave mode is distinguished by its manly character and by its strength of melody

If you noticed, Savas grouped the modes into their families. As you can see each of the modes that are related in family, have similar qualities to them.

However, from here things could get a lot more complicated. Each mode can be sung in different styles: sticheraric, heirmologic, etc, changing the tempo of a piece, not through literal rhythm per se, but through a whole change in cadence formula, the amount of notes per syllable, and so on. Often a mode might change from say diatonic to hard chromatic for a certain section.

For a lot of info on musical formulas see the Divine Music Project

We could also go a few other directions, such as aligning each mode with its western mode and thence getting a characteristic interpretation from someone like Guido D'Arezzo. Using this the modes would be:

Diatonic Modes

1st Serious, lends to any feeling, quite happy and very skillful to tame the passions of the soul
Plagal 1st Sad, serious and tearful, much adapted to provoke tears
4th Angelical, belongs to the youth, where pleasure and sadness meet
Plagal 4th The perfect one, to wisdom, has to be very glad

Chromatic Modes

2nd Makes happy, causes happiness and pleasure to those who are in sadness
Plagal 2nd Devout, tearful and pious

Enharmonic Modes

3rd Mystic, Vehement, effective to incite anger
Grave Harmonious, has tender effects

(Savas, Canticum)

However, you can see that these two different interpretations don't line up for every mode. I'm of the mind that this second interpretation is better for Gregorian Chant.

Russian Modes

Here things are quite a bit different. Though there have been several types of Russian Chant (Znamenny chant is a different story), what is used most today has been greatly influenced by the European west most especially during the 17th-18th centuries (Simmons). What has come out is much different in that it is Polyphonic as opposed to the Byzantine Monophonic style, i.e. 4 part harmony as opposed to a single melody line with supporting ison.

While the role of a chanter in the Byzantine style is:

  not to impose on the chant any personal meaning or emotion, but to realize in song the meaning and the feeling that are there in the text and the music. (Melling 26)

Russian chant, influenced by the west is very much about bringing out the physical emotions. It's Renaissance style. As Metropolitan Eugene of Kiev said:

  they have often disregarded the sanctity of the place and subject of their compositions, so that, generally speaking, it is not the music which is adapted to the sacred words, but instead the words are merely added to the music and often in a contrived manner. Apparently, they wanted more to impress their audience with concert-like euphony than to touch the hearts with pious melody, and often during such compositions the church resembles more an Italian opera than the house of worthy prayer to the Almighty. (Drillock)

Now while I find that a little harsh, I'm also finding it hard to speak about the goals of Russian Common Chant in the same way as Byzantine. This isn't just about me not being able to find any sources, though that's part of it. In the Russian modes (maybe in this case more correctly tones), several are in the same scale and there is none of the correlation between modes we see in Byzantine. This means we can't break them into the families or relate all of them to the Western Modes which have general characteristics e.g. per D'Arezzo. Some of them could be shown to have equivalent scales, but I can't do that right now, nor can I find a source that has.


Did God create man to replace the fallen Angels? As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period.

That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty.

It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship.

Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.

The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
Creation and the eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not occur at the same time. The angels were in existence before the creation of the earth. (Job 38:4, 7) The earth has been given to mankind as a home, not a testing ground. (Psalm 115:16, Psalm 37:29)
The eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not happen until Jesus was appointed as the king of God's kingdom. Under inspiration, David helps us to see that at some point, the Messiah would receive a certain amount of authority, but that after this he would still have to wait for a period of time before given authorization to act against his enemies:

Psalm 110:1
Jehovah declared to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

In Acts, the Bible helps us to see that this refers to Jesus sitting at God's right hand after being resurrected back to heavenly life, and that even after that, there was still a waiting period before he would act against his enemies:

Acts 2:32-35
God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.
Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and
received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out
what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he
himself says, 'Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I
place your enemies as a stool for your feet."'

Bible prophecy and world events point toward the year 1914 as the year when Jesus was anointed to king of God's kingdom and he acted to evict Satan and his angels out of heaven, with Satan thereafter being confined to the earth. (Revelation 12:7-12) The idea that this did not occur until the start of the "last days" is supported in Revelation 12:17 when it brings out that once the Devil is confined to the earth he knows he only "has a short period of time" remaining. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) That means that we can rejoice because the time of living under Satan's "system of things" is nearing its end. (2 Corinthians 4:4) After that mankind can fully enjoy the earth as their home with God's physical and spiritual protection and blessing! (Revelation 21:3, 4; 1 Corinthians 15:26)
For more information look at this related question in the "Good News From God!" brochure: What is God's Purpose for the Earth?


Why couldn't a person in the OT be both priest and king? In 1 Samuel 13, Saul is king and yet performs priestly duties even though he shouldn't have.  Samuel rebukes Saul and tells him that his kingdom is slowly coming to an end because of his disobedience.

My question is: where in the Bible is it established that a person could not hold both the positions of king and priest?

Some other information that may or may not be interesting:

1) Melchizedek appears to Abram in Genesis 14 as BOTH priest and king.
2) Of course, Jesus fulfills both roles as the true Priest and true King.
3) The role of king of Israel wasn't established until the time of Saul and David, so during the writing of the Mosaic Law, kingship should not have been a thing.  Were kings mentioned in the law? (if so, why?)

The strongest restriction is that the priests of the Israelite nation could only be from the tribe of Levi, and specifically on descendants of Aaron. Some verses showing this include Numbers 3:10, 3:38 and 16:40:

  ... This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the Lord ...

The kingship was not so strongly restricted, but Genesis 49:10 does clearly prophesy that it belongs to Judah:

  The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet ...

So looking at the various people you asked about:

Melchizedek: was not an Israelite, so neither of these restrictions apply to him. He was a faithful foreign king.

Jesus: was an Israelite and is King because he is descended from David. He isn't a descendant of Aaron and his priesthood isn't from them. Instead he is a priest because he became a man and died on the cross for humanity.

Saul: was not a Judahite or a Levite. He definitely had no right to act like a priest, but the Genesis 49 prophesy was not so strict, so God wasn't being contradictory when he appointed Saul as king.

Kings were mentioned in the Law, most explicitly in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. That passage describes how the kings were to act, and it explains even the best kings like David and Solomon got into trouble. It doesn't say however which tribes the kings could come from.


How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»? How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's Amoris Lætitia?

In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):

  It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?
  After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
  After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
  After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
  After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(my emphases)

Briefly, they question if Francis supports

Communion for adulterous couples?
moral relativism?
living in sin?
there not being intrinsically evil acts?(e.g., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.)
private interpretation of moral norms?

After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the

Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
Creed (#3-11)
Law of God (#12-29)
Sacraments (#30-40)

in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note).

For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W.  Baum, on March 22, 1996).
12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).
22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62).  There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

(my emphases)

Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.


Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgement in the Christian age From my understanding of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God agrees to spare the cities even if a few righteous people live there. In the Christian age, our righteousness is imputed to us by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Does this mean that God's judgement will not come to pass as long as there a Christians living in a region?

And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked?

  Genesis 18:2

And,

  if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment

  2 Peter 2:9

The first passage is a reference to Abraham before Sodom, interceding with the Lord.  The second is also speaking of Lot and Sodom.

In one sense, you could say that God is holding off judgment because of those who are and will be righteous because of Christ.  This pattern is seen may times in Scripture.

There are some valid considerations, however.

In Sodom, the judgment was total, from which Lot was saved.  Not all judgment is of the same degree.  Certainly,  God preserves His elect.  But, no matter what it looks like, God is still just and faithful.  One cannot judge adequately in this life what calamities God should and should not save people from, or what calamities are acceptable, or even who His elect even are (without personal insight, that is).

While the general truth is valid, even if God were to destroy the whole Earth with fire today, was He unjust?  His righteous are with Him, whoever they are, and the wicked are consumed.

So, yes, as a general rule, but specific situations can be a little but tricky (e.g., whether God should or should not judge America similarly, which is how it is often raised).


The Lds Prophet Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe in God, the eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." The Bible also teaches God is eternal. Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou are God." And in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 1:17, Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen"
Yet Joseph Smith contradicts not only the Bible but his own words from his first article of faith.
""We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will now refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...he was once a man like us... (Smith, Teaching of the Prophet, pp. 345,346.)
So how does the Lds church reconcile/justify this "glaring" contradiction?

Introduction: Let’s start with a brief overview to establish who’s who from the LDS point of view:
Latter-day Saints commonly refer to God the Eternal Father as Elohim, a Hebrew plural meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ, as Jehovah.
The first spirit son of Elohim (Heavenly Father) and his wife (Heavenly Mother) is called Jehovah.
Jehovah came to earth as Jesus to be born as a man in order to progress to godhood (exaltation).
To members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints there is no one else higher then Heavenly Father (Elohim).
God the Father is the Supreme Being.  He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things.
He is the God over all creation as Latter Day Saints know it. Take note of that statement.  Hebrews 1:2 is used as evidence that there are many worlds.  Elohim is God over this world.

Father in Heaven: The Father of the spirits of all mankind.  Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh.  Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim... it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father [Elohim].

Godhead: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead?lang=eng&letter=g

Jesus Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng

Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j

Brief overview of LDS theology with regard to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Eternal Father: About 124 B.C. the book of Mosiah (in the Book of Mormon) made these prophesies:

For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. (Mosiah 3:5 and 8)

Note that it is “the Lord Omnipotent” who is to come down from heaven to be called Jesus Christ.  He is “the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning.”   Mosiah chapter 15 goes on to say Father and Son are one God, the Eternal Father:

God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son - the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth (Mosiah 15:1-4).

God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).

I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307)  http://mit.irr.org/god-was-once-man-us-finessing-off-putting-mormon-doctrine

In the Bible Jesus says God is Spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). However, Joseph Smith saw fit to change these words to deny that God (read Elohim) is Spirit:

Is God a spirit?  John 2–4: “Ye Must Be Born Again” John 4:24: Some may be confused by Jesus’s statement that God is a spirit. The Joseph Smith Translation of this verse provides an important clarification: “For unto such hath God promised his Spirit” (in John 4:24, footnote a). Modern revelation also teaches that God has a body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22–23; see also Genesis 5:1–3; Hebrews 1:1–3). [1]  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-new-testament-2019/07.scripture_title4-p11#scripture_title4

The manifestation of God's physical body came in a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1843:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21

The Bible says that God is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2) and that He is eternal (1 Timothy 1:17).  He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end (Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13).  God the creator was not himself created.  But the Book of Mormon says God was once a man and has a body of flesh and bones.  Mormons worship Elohim, God the Father, through Jesus, God the Son.  They are God the Eternal Father.  What is unclear is who created the man who became God the Eternal Father.  What is also unclear is whether Joseph Smith understood the difference in meaning between eternal and immortal.  After all, how could a created being be eternal?  Here is the LDS definition of ‘eternal life’ and ‘immortality’:

Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of life that our Eternal Father lives. The Lord declared, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being.  Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/eternal-life?lang=eng

Conclusion: One possible LDS justification or explanation for their belief that Elohim, the Supreme Being, also known as God the Eternal Father, or God the Father, or Heavenly Father, and who has a body of flesh and bones, is that Joseph Smith was the recipient of modern revelation [1]
Another is that the Book of Mormon trumps The Bible. [2]

Articles of Faith – 8: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. [2]  http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng

Disclaimer:  In the Bible God the Father was never created, is not a man and He is not God the Son.  And Jesus, the Son of God, is not Jehovah, nor is he God the Father.  That’s what my Bible says, and I believe the Bible.  If I have misrepresented the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I would appreciate an explanation of where I have gone wrong.


Is Communion still Communion under only the species of wine? I was reading in the Youcat that

  Communion only under the species of bread is also a full communion with Christ

I was always under the impression that both the bread and the wine when consecrated were both the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, therefore it was valid and acceptable to receive Our Lord one way or the other or both.

My gluten intolerant mother-in-law told me this so I'm not entirely sure if it's just true or not.  I for sure that Christ is fully present in both, but I don't know if it is valid or acceptable to only receive Him in the wine.

The passage in the Youcat may have been in reference to bringing Communion to the sick, so in that case, it's not normal for an Extraordinary Minister to carry around a chalice to bring to shut-ins.

Yes, but receiving the species of consecrated wine alone is not common.

During Mass, the celebrant(s) separately consecrates the Bread to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ, and the Wine to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ. Each is equally divine, and each is the Eucharist. The priest signifies this by taking a piece of the host and placing it into the chalice.

It is recommended that, when available, the communicant receive both forms, but it not required. It is recommended that, whenever feasible, that communion be offered in both forms.  But it is not required.

Note: when presenting the consecrated host the minister says "The Body of Christ" to the communicant, and when presenting the chalice the minister says "The Blood of Christ". This describes the physical form only and references back to the Last Supper.  Each form of communion is the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ.

Reference:  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Chapter 1


Why does the Battle Hymn of the Republic say Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"? A seldom-quoted stanza of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" says

  In the beauty of the lillies Christ was born across the sea
  with a beauty in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
  As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
  while God is marching on.

My question is, what does it mean when it says that Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"?  I thought the story was that he was born in a manger, not among lillies.  Is there any reference to lillies in the Biblical description of Jesus' birth?

Or does the "in" mean "with", i.e. is it saying that Jesus was as beautiful as a lily when he was born?  That could be a reference to the line in the Bible about how King Solomon was not arrayed so finely as the lillies of the field.

According to this site, the first draft of the song actually had the words

  In the whiteness of the lilies he was born across the sea

And then the final version of the song, which was first published in 1862 had the words

  In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea

That same site references a book by Edmund Wilson entitled Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966).  On page 96 of that book, the author suggests that the lyrics may be referring to Easter lilies (which are associated with the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Absent any reason given by Julia Ward for choosing those words, we can merely speculate as to why she chose them.  Based on the context, though, she was clearly wanting to convey the hope portrayed in Jesus' birth and the beauty of what He accomplished in stark contrast to the darkness underlying the rest of the song.


What is the basis for the LDS belief that religious truth is confirmed by what you feel? LDS Elder M. Russell Ballard in a Youtube video said that

  Religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel. And that's the way heavenly father answers prayers.

What does it mean that religious truth is confirmed by what you feel? Are there any proofs for this argument? If yes, what are they?

Elder Ballard is talking about the fruit of the Spirit - the "fruit" being a manifestation, consequence, or result of the presence of the Holy Ghost.
This teaching is founded on a few scriptures, mainly Galatians 5:22-23 which says:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

and Ephesians 5:9 which says:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Spiritual truths are confirmed by spiritual means. (I recommend perusing the answer at that link for an explanation.) Confirming feelings come by revelation from God and cannot be coerced or forced upon another to prove things to them.
However, when someone speaks what the Holy Ghost inspires (a testimony), the Spirit can manifest truth of it to those receiving it:
2 Nephi 33:1

... when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

The Book of Mormon promises revelation to those who seek truth in several instances, for example:
2 Nephi 32:5

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

In more modern times, Joseph Smith received a revelation about conducting church meetings:
D&C 46:7

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart

The ultimate promise of revelation in the Book of Mormon is found in its closing verses as Moroni prepares to bury the record. It is probably the most-quoted passage by Latter-day Saints about how to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus? I've heard, in several informal situations, claims to the effect that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. That many saw him and even interacted with him over the span of many days after his crucifixion. However, I'm not aware of the historical basis for such claims -- if there is, I have not yet had the opportunity to have the evidence presented to me when the claim was made and I asked for the basis.
Obviously, I'm fully aware of the writing of the New Testament in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen in resurrected form. For example, we have the eyewitness accounts of the authors of the gospels. We also have the book of Acts, which mentions Jesus' ascension to Heaven in chapter 1. And we also have the testimony of the apostle Paul, who had an extraordinary conversion experience in which he encountered the living Christ on his way to Damascus. So people who claimed to be eyewitnesses definitely existed, but the aforementioned cases only amount to six, not hundreds.
Question: What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus? Are there independent eyewitness accounts, other than the six that I already mentioned, that have been preserved to this day, in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen alive, in resurrected form, after his crucifixion?
Alternatively, have any writings been preserved containing second hand accounts? One example is 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which claims that there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Are there other examples, e.g., the writings of an early church father providing a similar second hand testimony?

Below is a paragraph from Josephus’ ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ (18:63–64).  At first I was hopeful that it would provide you with a secular, historical source to support eye-witness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.  However, it turns out that the comments in brackets may have been added by a later translator.

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to refer to him as a man]. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah-Christ.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For on the third day he appeared to them again alive, just as the divine prophets had spoken about these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”

Then there is the curious matter of the testimony of women being recorded as evidence:

“When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Israel. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

Moving swiftly into the 21st century, you may find the following extract from this article worth considering: https://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, “I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Allow me to leave you with this final quote:

The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be.


What is purpose of being ready for the End Times? I have seen Christians study the Scriptures for clues as to how one can tell that the Second Coming, the Tribulation, the events of Revelation, the End Times are upon us.

What is the purpose for such preparation? Would it be to stop participation in a particularly bad sin? To be able to point things out to weaker-faith faith family members so that they can get assurance Bible is true?  What have prominent theologians who hold to the importance of an End-Times theology written about the necessity of preparation, or action upon knowing the signs (as opposed to everyday duties for Christians)?

Here, one theologian that doesn't fit this criteria would be Martin Luther, or others who might say it's an allegory.

The purpose for preparation of the second coming is made clear throughout the New Testament.  There are three related primary effects:

It holds you accountable for your actions (2 Peter 3)

It keeps you from living too closely attached to a fallen world. (Hebrews 11)

It reminds you that your work is for the unseen Master, and that there will be a reward (Jesus' parables)

And note, 2 Thessalonians points would what this should look like.  It isn't about trying to figure out "the day or the hour," but rather leading a blameless life so that the master will be happy when he returns.
Finally, Jesus' parables often talk about being prepared for the return of the Master.  Be it the parable of the Wedding Guests, or the Foolish Virgins, the Talents, or the Wheat and the Tares, being found ready when the Master returns is always commended.  Indeed, Jesus specifically says in Matthew 24:

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

In 2 Peter 3, we read this:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”  ... 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ... 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.

This then begs the question:

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

Likewise, the author of Hebrews commends those who are detached from this world.  The author specifically points out those who lived as "aliens and strangers" for special value in faith, writing:

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

By longing for that which is to come, these people are specifically showing they value God above the world.


Does God cause the punishment or is that the effect of his absence? Genesis 3:7

  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for
  themselves.

Romans 5:12

  Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and
  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

In these 2 verses, we see when Adam and Eve sinned they immediately underwent death, started to age and their body were susceptible to diseases. They realized they were naked and the inability to repent right away shows us the decrease of their intellect and will.

My question is: What is the Catholic understanding - Did God made their body corruptable(tweaked the DNA so it slowly dies) and everything else in nature or was/is this the result of the absence of his presence?

When they rejected God, God's supernatural presence stopped keeping their bodies and this whole world to function properly? Or does God actively make things defective to punish for sins?

The answer is that Adam and Eve necessitated God's presence to live forever, a presence which he especially made manifest in the fruits of the Tree of Life. And so they died because bodies are not indestructible by nature but need to be fed.

Two kinds of death exist, spiritual death and physical death. They died spiritually at that moment they ate of the fruit, because as the text indicates they noticed that they were naked(Gen3:7), which was not normal back then. Having been cut off from God, they did not deserve to be joined back into communion with him and so the Tree of Life was taken away from them. The result being that they naturally started to decay.

The bodies God made were intentionally made in such a way as to make their hosts depend on God. And seemingly all of creation is like that, we always need to reconnect to God in order to live. Now whether this is done out of necessity or purely by will I do not know, but it seems that it is by necessity because God cannot create something eternal if it be not an extension of himself in some way. Therefore we say that the soul is indestructible because God breathed it into us, but that also means the body is destructible because it is not of God's being, metaphorically. That is to say it is not made by God as an image of God.

This same dependancy on the fruit of the Tree of Life is repeated in the Eucharist which is the fruit from the wooden cross for our salvation. And again in Revelations 22:2-3 we read:

  2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
  was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and
  yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the
  healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the
  throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall
  serve him.

However this does not mean God made man corruptible, that view is denied by the Church, and by all Christians.

  For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own
  likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into
  the world. And they follow him that are of his side.

  ~ Book of Wisdom 2:23-25

We must therefore distinguish between what I will term ordinary sin and extraordinary sin.

Ordinary sin: To go against the eternal nature of God(ex:lying, theft, murder).

Extraordinary sin: To go against a contingent command of God(ex:honor the Sabbath).

Being incorruptible only covers ordinary sin, but not extraordinary. Placing ourselves in the context, this would be the only way God could have tested us without violating his own goodness to make us in a state of goodness. So for the test, he simply put forth a contingent request that being to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Whether that tree had power in it of itself is besides the point, because regardless of it having power or not Adam and Eve disobeyed a direct command of God. Since God is life, to go against him inevitably results in death. Thus the dilemma is solved.

Now when it comes to punishment, God can use and does use both the withdrawal of his presence as well as the exercise of his wrath to punish us. It depends on the situation, as the withdrawal of his presence will allow demons to wreck havok, but he himself can also  and does choose to wreck havok as for example the Book of Revelation testifies that when Jesus will personally come down from Heaven and eliminate the armies of the Earth, and finally call upon all the animals in proximity to come and eat the corpses(Rev19).

You don't hear about that side of Jesus too often do you, but so be it, as the Ecclesiastes notes, there is a time for grace, a time for justice, a time for wrath, a time for all things. And the constant is love.


Is brethren a currently used plural for brother (monks)? General use of brethren as meaning is considering archaic and not used. Is it in current usage in the Christian world?

I'm not sure this is a question about Christianity as such. The Oxford English Dictionary for “brother” has an entire section devoted to the religious sense of the word (section A.III), with examples from the 20th and 21st centuries, including the plural “brethren”.

In addition I noticed these secular uses of the word:

“His attempts at ‘contributing’ were not welcomed by many of his
brethren officers.” (Horn & M. Wyczynski in Warrior Chiefs; 2001)
“Scores of exiled Tibetans..set out on foot towards Tibet to support
their brethren who are facing oppression under the Chinese regime.”
(Hindustan Times; 2008)


Was Jesus Christ crucified on the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33) or the 15th (April 4, 33)? The Jewish calendar calculates a day from sunset to sunset, thus the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening) and Jesus' crucifixion (on Friday afternoon) happened in the same day. In John Gospel this day was the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33 CE) of the Jewish calendar; In the three Synoptic Gospels the Last Supper is a Passover meal so Jesus' crucifixion must have taken place during the afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan (April 4, 33 CE).

Both dates obviously can not be true. Which date is correct?

Writing in The Mystery Of The Last Supper, Professor Sir Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge, proposes a new solution, based on a combination of Biblical, historical and astronomical research. He urgues that Jesus used a different calendar and crucifixion took place in the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33 CE) of the official post-exilic Jewish calendar. He explains:

" I have worked with an expert astronomer to investigate, for the first time, the possibility that a third Jewish calendar was in use in the first century A.D. The official Jewish calendar at the time of Jesus' death was that still used by Jews today: a lunar system in which days run from sunset to sunset. This was developed during the Jewish exile in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. Before that, however, the Jews had a different system. This is referred to in the Book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, when God instructs Moses and Aaron to start their year at the time of the Exodus from Egypt.

There is extensive evidence that this original Jewish calendar survived to Jesus' time. It was used by groups such as the Samaritans, Zealots, some Galileans and some Essenes. Under this pre-exilic calendar, Passover always fell a few days earlier than in the official Jewish calendar, and the days were marked from sunrise to sunrise, not sunset to sunset.

Using our reconstruction of this calendar we can see that in A.D. 33, the year of the Crucifixion, the Passover meal was on the Wednesday of Holy Week. From the clues they give, it's clear that Matthew, Mark and Luke all used the pre-exilic calendar in their description of the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John uses the official calendar in which the Last Supper was before the Passover.

Holy Thursday is the well-known day on which Christians annually commemorate the Last Supper of Jesus. But my research shows that we should really be celebrating this on the Wednesday of Holy Week. A Wednesday Last Supper with the Crucifixion on Friday also allows just the right amount of time for all the events the Gospels record between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion".


According to Protestantism, are we saved by faith into a repentance of law-following? Just have a question regarding faith and works:
A person has eternal life solely by faith in Jesus Christ (as in believing every word Jesus said, including his claims that he is God), but by believing that Jesus is God, the person also believes that following the law is what he/she should do, and thus the person repents; which is why although John and Romans quote salvation is by faith alone, Jesus urged in Matthew, Mark and Luke for people to repent, and James says that faith without works is dead.
According to Protestantism would the above view be correct?

Although it is true that Christians believe salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, it is not true that Christians believe they are under the Mosaic Law.  Jesus came to fulfil the Law and has introduced a new covenant.  The new covenant frees us from an obligation to keep the hundreds of laws that were given to Israel.  The new covenant is not a covenant of works (obeying the Mosaic Law).  Christians have been liberated from the condemnation of the Mosaic Law and have been set free by the grace of God and are “born again” – the spiritual rebirth that gives us life.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10).

Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20).

When people repent, before God, and seek His forgiveness, it is because the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their sinful condition.  They realise (as I did, 25 years ago) that Jesus died in order to pay the penalty of sin – of all sin.  It is our sins that nailed Jesus to that instrument of torture.  God, in His infinite wisdom, grace and love, provided the solution to sin.  He sent His one, His only-begotten Son, to redeem us from the penalty of death that comes with our inability to keep God’s laws.
Your question is based on a wrong premise.  You say, “By believing that Jesus is God, the person also believes that following the law is what he/she should do.”  By believing that Jesus died to pay the penalty of sin (which is spiritual death as well as physical death) the person who repents comes to understand that it is faith that saves us.  And, as the Bible says, even faith is a gift from God.

But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

The deity of Jesus has nothing to do with following the Mosaic Law.  When I turned to God in faith I didn’t even know that Jesus subsists in the One Being of God. It took some time before I fully understood who Jesus REALLY was.  That lack of understanding did not prevent me from realising that I had to repent and turn to God and seek forgiveness.
I am a Christian of the Protestant persuasion.  I have been set free and have been adopted into God’s family, not because of anything I could ever do, but because I have faith in Christ Jesus, and am eternally indebted to what God, in Jesus, accomplished in order to save a sinner such as me.


Is there any evidence that Jesus had no children? There is no evidence that Jesus had children. But is there anything in the Bible indicating that he certainly did not?

The reason for asking about the evidence of the negative: If someone says "Jesus might have children, I might have his blood in my veins" I may answer "I don't believe that Jesus had children because..." - is there anything in Bible supporting this attitude?

I think the clearest is prophecy in Isaiah 53:7-9:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.


Why the Western European style names? Why are mostly Western European style names like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John used for Middle Eastern people? I mean why are those names still spelled that way in the Bible when we could find all the originals (Barnabas, Saul, Yeshua, etc. )?

I know this looks like kind of a mundane question. But, as I have not found  similar questions under the language tag I hope it is acceptable to post it here.

They are not "Western European" names per se, instead these names are common in Western Europe, America, etc. specifically because they spread along with Christianity.

Names are transliterated because of a desire to keep these words as close to the original as possible, but there are differences between languages, such as how words are used and what letters and sounds are available. The nature of these changes is fairly consistent for words outside of the Bible writings which are transliterated.

The exact nature of these transliterations are a better discussion for a linguist group, but I will give some simple examples to help explain how we use the literal words from the translations.

Take Mark, for instance. The original word is "Μάρκος" in Greek. That's actually what they called him. That's the actual letters they wrote in the original manuscripts.  At least, that's a digital representation of the Greek phenoms which were written down by people who knew him. The originals were probably all upper case with no spaces or punctuation. All of these letters have a a very consistent transliteration into Roman characters (which is what English uses), and even the letters look a lot like the original Greek letters. In that sense, you could spell it in roman characters as "Markos". But in Greek, the last to letters, the "ος" are part of the word that marks it's place in the sentence. In this instance, it's in the singular nomitive case. You might also see it as "Μάρκον", "Μάρκου", and so fourth, depending on where it is in each sentence. In English, we don't have any need for that ending because we determine part of speech by location in the sentence. So, we simply drop that changeable part, and that leaves us with "Mark". It's literally the English way to write the word that appears in the manuscripts. The same is true for many other names.

Some transliterations aren't as obvious. Of most interest is "Jesus". In Greek, that is "Ἰησοῦς". To a casual observer, it's hard to see the connection here. However, to a Greek student, it is obvious. The "σ" and "ς" are both the same letter, and is the only Greek letter which changes grapheme by location. It relates to the roman "s". The "η" is a little hard to transliterate into roman letters. That transliterates as "e", though it technically has more of a vowel sound like "hey", which is different than epsilon, also transliterated as "e". The "Ἰ" is an "iy" like sound, explicitly without aspiration. So, you might think it should be transliterated as "I". However, the Greek had no "J" character or sound, and the "Ἰ" was as close as they could come for words that had "J" like sound. So, if the Greek Jews were trying to write something like "John" or "Joshua", they would have had to use "Ἰ" instead. It is very common when transliterating Greek words, especially those which may have been based on Hebrew words, to transliterate "Ἰ" to "J". That leaves the "οῦς". Once again, in the Greek, the ending can change based on part of speech, but this form is a bit different. The "οῦ" is a dipthong which doesn't quite have a good one to one relationship with roman letters. Even though you could probably get away with "ou", it has been very common to tranliterate "οῦ" as "u" in English. That leaves us with "Jesus".

As for "Yeshua", that comes from a transliteration of the Hewbrew. As to which is preferred there, between the Greek or the Hebrew, that can be a very different matter. But neither is arbitrary. That may be a good question for another time.

Sometimes, the name can be transliterated differently into roman characters but different languages. One example is "Πέτρος". A close transliteration of the characters might be "Petros", and it's basically the Greek word for a stone. The "ος", as stated before could be dropped for English. And English likes "er" better for the "r". Spanish, on the other hand, doesn't like the "t" in favor of a "d". In English, it becomes "Peter", and in Spanish it becomes "Pedro". Both are very popular names in their respective languages in regions where Christianity has spread.

We do see "Saul" and "Barnabas" in the Bible. And when that's what is used in the Greek text, that's what's used in at least the KJV and probably most other formal equivalent translations. One exception to this rule may be "Calvary" and "Easter", which in the KJV may be dynamic equivalent variants rather than simple transliteration. However, to my knowledge, all of the names of people were simply transliterated. The Bible authors themselves, under inspiration of God, chose which names they wanted to use. The translators just copied that. If you are asking why Peter is sometimes called Simon and sometimes Cephas, etc. by the original authors, that's a good question, but a different question. The reasons would likely be different for each person and each instance. Each author (Paul, Luke, etc.) may have different reasons, such as target audience, or they are quoting a person speaking, or even to emphasize a new name, etc.

The names you mentioned were common Greek names, not Anglo-Saxon names. These names became popular because they were in the Bible and as the Bible spread, particularly throughout Western Europe and the Americas, people named their children after the famous names in the Bible. Some names were more famous, like Mark, and Peter, and John. Some names just didn't get mentioned as much and weren't as famous, like Dorcus or Barnabas. Sometimes, people still do pick out the lesser common names. But the more popular the person or name is in the Bible, generally the more likely that people will use that name.

The same thing is true of Hebrew names, too, like Daniel, Jonathan, David, etc., which break down into Hebrew words. Those Hebrew words, just like the Greek words, spread into English and other languages because of the spread of the Bible.


Who said "he would be called a Nazarene"? Matthew 2:23 NIV

  and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

From what research I have done, it does not seem that any of the prophets who are recorded in the old testament said this, or anything similar. Even the apocrypha does not seem to make reference to this prophecy.

Even more troubling, is Matthew saying the prophets, plural, have predicted this, making it even more vexing that it is not written in anywhere in the canon today. What was Matthew referencing here?

My response comes from this article about OT prophecy about Jesus from Nazareth.

It basically states that there is no direct Old-Testament reference to Nazareth. The article postulates two explanations:

1) It was a reference that Jesus would be despised.

  He says 'prophets,' plural. It could be that Matthew was referring to several Old Testament references to the despised character of Jesus (i.e., Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1). Nazareth held the Roman garrison for the northern areas of Galilee.1 Therefore, the Jews would have little to do with this place and largely despised it

2) It might be a play on words for the Hebrew word for branch.

  there could be a play on words that Matthew was referring to. In Isaiah 11:1 it says, "Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit." In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in NaZaReth.


Was the Nicene Creed accepted under duress? In the book Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer, author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threats as well as actual instances of violence, in an effort by Constantine to forge a "unified" church, and thus a unified empire.

  [Constantine] now began to pressure all bishops to sign. Arians refusing to sign were exiled.

  ...

  The pressure from the emperor was so great and his reactions so feared that attendees justified their signatures thusly; Apuleius wrote "I pass over in silence... those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane." "the soul is nothing worse for a little ink."

  Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi reported that out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted the creed. Only after returning home did other attendees ... summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, "We committed an impious act, O Prince ... by subscribing to blasphemy from fear of you."

(Emphasis mine)

To what extent is this an accurate account of the Council of Nicaea?

The Nicene Creed is a long-standing tradition in Christianity, and "defines the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians".  It has been independently accepted by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran (pdf link), and plenty of Protestant churches.

Joshua Christian seems to have presented a fanciful (or at least misleading) view of the formation of the Nicene Creed.  I could find no other sources that back up his story.  Here is the account of the Creed's creation, as I understand it.

Sometime before 325 AD, around 1800 Christian bishops (every bishop Constantine knew existed) were invited to convene in Nicea.  We have no way of knowing with 100% certainty how many bishops actually showed up, but the traditional number is 318.  Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318; Eustathius of Antioch estimated 270.

Please note, this is only a count of bishops.  Each bishop was allowed (and encouraged) to bring deacons, priests, or other traveling companions.  Only the bishops had voting rights.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that there were 2030 total people in attendance, with only 318 votes cast.  Only 318 votes could be cast, because only that number of people had voting authority.

Addressing Constantine's supposed power over the council: I will concede the point that Constantine wanted a Creed to be developed in order to "forge a 'unified' church".  That seems likely, by the fact that he arranged for the council to meet.  However, I disagree that Constantine cared that this particular Creed pass.  At this time, Constantine was not even Christian (he was baptized 12 years later, in 337 AD)!  It would make sense for him to go along with whatever Creed naturally came about during this council.

As further proof that Constantine's meddling was not the theological backing of the Nicene Creed, there was a Second Ecumenical Council that met in 381 AD (40+ years after Constantine died) and confirmed the Nicene Creed.  It should be noted that the Second Ecumenical Council did not have overlapping members with the First Ecumenical Council, as it was held 56 years later.

Addressing the Arians.  Arianism was, indeed, a major topic for the Council of Nicea.  The debate centered on whether Jesus co-existed eternally with God the Father and the Holy Spirit (a trinitarian view) or whether Jesus was created by God the Father at some point prior to the creation of the universe (a non-trinitarian view).  Arius, a priest in the Alexandrian diocese, claimed that Jesus was "born" and was, therefore, different in essence from God the Father.

Initially, 22 of the 318 bishops came out in support of Arianism.  However, after the writings of Arius were read in the council, and after hearing arguments from many of the other bishops, 19 of the 22 Arians came to believe in a trinitarian view of the Godhead.  Arguments that swayed toward the trinitarian view included John 10:30, where Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  Each side of the debate had ample time to make a case: the debate lasted for over two months!

In the end, the majority of the 318 bishops agreed upon the trinitarian view presented in the Nicene Creed.  Arius was exiled, along with Theonas and Secundus, to Illyricum.  None of those three were bishops, so they did not have voting authority in the council.

Three bishops, Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Maris of Chalcedon, remained believing the Arian view of the Godhead.  They chose to sign the Nicene Creed anyway, out of deference to Constantine.

In the end, all 318 bishops in attendance signed the Nicene Creed.  Out of those, only 3 bishops chose to sign without fully believing the Creed themselves.  There were only three people exiled (and those, only to another province in Rome).

Joshua Christian misses the forest for the trees.  He is correct that there was political and religious pressure.  He far overstates that effect on the Creed as a whole.


According to reformed theology, does Satan know who the elect are (during their time on earth?) Reformed theology believes in the doctrine of election.

Question: Does reformed theology say anything about whether Satan "recognizes" the Elect while they're on earth?

After reading so many books by reformed theologians and never encountering such an idea - 'I don't think so.' Reformed theologians generally do not speculate about things 'within the kingdom of darkness' and maybe there is no value in truly knowing. From what limited information we do have from scripture, I sometimes think the Devil may be in a sense, insane in his sin.  Even though he must have known the scriptures better than anyone else; simply considering his direct interest in them, and how long he had been alive, and how powerful his mind must be, one would think he would have known how Jesus would destroy him, but did not. It seems he failed to realize that in killing Christ, he was killing himself.  He seemed to have thought that destroying Christ would be to his benefit.

This makes me think that the Devil is partially insane in sin, or does not believe everything that is written. He may not even believe in election, he may try to keep people from faith in Christ, thinking that he actually achieves something.  Having actual knowledge of who are the elect, seems way outside of his knowledge even if he thought clearly about God.

In some ways the Devil is the personification of hatred. When you hate someone you do not see them as they actually are, but you have created a false person in your mind, a lie.  Love is truth. Only when you love someone, by faith in Christ's love for us, do you see who they are in truth.  Since the Devil therefore lives in a lie of hate, all that he sees is a lie, even when in form his logic may have correct parts. He is the 'Father of lies', and hates God. Therefore he can't properly understand God. To love God is to understand God. What I am saying is that since Satan is a slave to lies, even if he understands things we do not, there is no guarantee that he understand anything properly.


Where did Augustine say "It is certain that few are saved"? I've noticed on several sites Augustine is quoted as having said "It is certain that few are saved." Does anybody know the source? I find the quote curious because he ascribes certainty to his conviction.

The reference is probably to Augustine's Sermon 61, on Luke 13:21–24 – in which Jesus compares the kingdom of God to leaven in bread, and references the narrow gate.  Augustine says:

“The three measures of meal” of which the Lord spake, is the human race. Recollect the deluge; three only remained, from whom the rest were to be re-peopled. Noe had three sons, by them was repaired the human race. That holy “woman who hid the leaven,” is Wisdom. Lo, the whole world crieth out in the Church of God, “I know that the Lord is great.” Yet doubtless there are but few who are saved.
Ye remember a question which was lately set before us out of the Gospel, “Lord,” it was said, “are there few that be saved?” What said the Lord to this? He did not say, “Not few, but many are they who are saved.” He did not say this. But what said He, when He had heard, “Are there few that be saved? Strive to enter by the strait gate.” When thou hearest then, “Are there few that be saved?” the Lord confirmed what He heard.

So Augustine understands the Lord's words in Luke 13:24 as answering the question in the affirmative – yes, there are few that will be saved.  So Augustine's certainty – "doubtless there are few who are saved" – is based on his interpretation of the words of Jesus in this passage.


What happens to marriage on the New Earth I think I can safely say that humans were designed not to operate as a single solitary person but as part of a unit of two -- both as referenced by Gen 3:16-17 (see mentions of husband and wife in said passages) and ingrained feelings that appear to be a part of every person I know of (near as I can tell anyway...). However, there also seems to be support for there being no marriage after we are resurrected in Matthew 22:30. Can someone clear up my confusion on this topic?

Putting the verse you just cited (Matthew 22:30) back into context will clear up a bit of your confusion. First of all, the question was posed by the Jewish leaders about tedious Jewish customs in an attempt to catch Jesus off guard, as they frequently tried to do. The chapter even goes as far as to specify that they were Sadducees, which did not even believe in the resurrection. Furthermore, Christ's answer that they will not be married nor given in marriage refers to this contrived example (if you look at the KJV translation, it says "they" rather than "people") and not to couples in general. So this verse does not provide much support against marriage after the resurrection.

My experience is that most Christians agree that marriage between husband and wife is ordained by God...at least for this mortal life. The Bible does not say much else about marriage after death, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the various denominations as to the state of marriage after death.


How was the 70 weeks of Daniel understood over the ages? What were the beliefs regarding the total fulfillment/non total fulfillment of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy before the Scoffield bible era?

I am especially interested in those who believed there was either 1 week or a half week left at the "end before Christ" returned.

However, I am also interested in those who believed the prophecy was totally fulfilled.

NOTE: I am looking for both early 1st century to Scofield bible opinions.

Up until about the time of John Darby circa 1850, Christians believed the 70 weeks of Daniel had been fully completed.  There was no "gap" theory.
Introductioin
In looking for an answer, it often helps to review what others who came before the current time thought about the 70 weeks or 490 years of Daniel 9:24-27.  This is not to say whether or not their calculations were accurate in terms of starting and ending dates, but rather it is only to answer whether they thought the 70 weeks had been completed.  We will see in fact a variety of starting and ending dates in their answers; however, we will find that yes, they all thought the 70 weeks had been fulfilled in the 1st century.  None were looking for some sort of temporally disconnected one week (7 years) or 3 ½ years that remained to be fulfilled.  This is so up until the mid 1800’s.
The focus of this post will not attempt to address the implications for the modern believer who might be looking for some future fulfillment yet to come, but rather, simply to answer the question whether the 70 weeks of Daniel have been fulfilled or not.
Historical Review
We will consider a number of early Christians who delved into Daniel.
Julius Africanus wrote about 220 CE and influenced Eusebius and other historians.  He believed that all 70 weeks had been fulfilled in Christ’s time.

It is by calculating from Artaxerxes, therefore, up to the time of Christ that the seventy weeks are made up, according to the numeration of the Jews [literal versus prophetic year].
Julius Africanus, XVI, From Fragments of the Chronography as quoted by Schaff
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.v.xvi.html

Athanasius of Alexandria was opposed Arianism and promoted consubstantiation between God the Father, Son, and Spirit.  He wrote around 350 CE.  He argued that the full 70 weeks was fulfilled to answer accusations that Messiah was yet to come; some were still looking for Christ.

Perhaps with regard to the other (prophecies) they [those still expecting a future fulfillment of the 70 weeks] may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where [Daniel 9:24] not only is the Christ referred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 39
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xxxix.html

Tertullian wrote about 200 CE and is considered the father of Latin Christianity understood the 70 weeks as completely fulfilled by the coming of Christ and destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chapter VIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.ix.viii.html

There are other early commentators such as Hippolytus, Origen, and others.  Basically, regardless of their starting and even ending points, they all understood that the 70-week decree was fulfilled.
Origen circa 220 CE

The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html

And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.v.v.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria wrote circa 200 CE

From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation.”2071 That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judæa was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those “sixty and two weeks,” as the prophet said, and “in the one week,” was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said. https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02/anf02.vi.iv.i.xxi.html

Future View
The typical starting point for when the “gap” theory between the 69th and 70th week was introduced sources to John Darby, a founder of the Plymouth Brethren.  He wrote in the 1830’s.  Aside from the historic view, there were others near that time, but still before him, who disagreed with Darby; they were men like Matthew Henry (c1700), John Calvin (c1550), and Sir Isaac Newton (c1700), and bibles like the Geneva Bible.  They maintained the “fulfilled historic” view, rather than the “future view”.
From Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Daniel Chapter IX, section III, to wit,

"1. The times [Daniel's 70 weeks] here determined are somewhat hard to be understood. In general, it is seventy weeks, that is, seventy times seven years, which makes just 490 years. The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years.
...
It does serve still to refute and silence the expectations of unbelievers, who will not own that Jesus is he who should come, but still look for another. This prediction [Daniel's 70 weeks] should silence them, and will condemn them; for, reckon these seventy weeks from which of the commandments to build Jerusalem we please, it is certain that they have expired above 1500 years ago; so that the Jews are for ever without excuse, who will not own that the Messiah has come when they have gone so far beyond their utmost reckoning for his coming. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc4.Dan.x.html

And then there is this from John Calvin.

After the grace of Christ had been obstinately rejected, then the extension of abominations followed; that is, God overwhelmed the temple in desecration, and caused its sanctity and glory to pass utterly away. Although this vengeance did not take place immediately after the close of the last week, yet God sufficiently avenged their impious contempt of his gospel, and besides this, he shews how he had no longer need of any visible temple, as he had now dedicated the whole world to himself from east to west.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.iv.xxxviii.html

Sir Isaac Newton also believed the 490 years were fulfilled.

For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years are ended with the death of Christ.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/newton_isaac/prophecies/daniel10.cfm

The key verse that was changed to allow the change from “fulfilled” to “future” was to whom the “he” referenced.  Again, prior to Darby, no one thought the “he” referenced anyone but Messiah.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Daniel 9:27 (bold mine)

Prior to Darby, all of the writers referred the “he” to Messiah.  But Darby believed it referred to the prince who destroyed the city in 70 CE or Titus or more generally the Romans.  Thus he looked for some sort of revived Roman Empire consisting of 10 states (toes).
Cyrus I. Scofield picked up the new teaching and published it.  Since the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, this theory has gained in popularity.  Another person who picked up the new tradition was Sir Robert Anderson who published The Coming Prince.
Conclusion
Up until about 1850, all the research points to the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel.  After Darby, even though his contemporaries argued against the gap idea, the belief in a future fulfillment was popularized.


Why did John the Baptist question the identity of Jesus? Clearly John was a prophet and he dedicated his life to God. God revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah.

In Matthew 3:13-17 he baptized Jesus, and proclaimed that he is The One in John 1:29

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

When John was arrested suddenly he doubts Jesus as Messiah. In Matthew 11:2-11

  "Are you really the Messiah we've been waiting for, or should we keep
  looking for someone else?"

This doesn't make sense. How should I understand it?

In the beginning of John's mission, he seemed to think that God was coming in wrath to judge the wicked:

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? ... Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. ... His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

(Matthew 3:7, 10, 12)
Jesus, although he could use hot words, did not seem to be the sort of Messiah that John was expecting. Thus, perhaps John doubted when Jesus was not who he thought the Messiah would be; but when he saw the sorts of signs Jesus worked, he had to ask. Jesus reminded John that what he did was what the Messiah would do, and he seems to have warned John that Jesus might not fulfill his expectations, but that did not mean that John should disbelieve:

"Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight [Isaiah 29:18b, 35:5a], the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear [Isaiah 29:18a, 35:5b], the dead are raised [Isaiah 26:19], and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them [Isaiah 61:1].
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."


Is Jesus God, as well as the son of God in LDS? I have not yet been able to find the answer to this question, about LDS Mormon beliefs. I think, because Mormon belief is different from orthodox / mainstream Christianity, that this question provokes anxiety and anger, and is not wanted among Mormons.

  The Question: Do Mormons consider Jesus to be God, as the Father is God and as the Holy Spirit is God?

Yes, and not only is it a severe misunderstanding of pretty much all of our doctrine to think we believe otherwise, but there are also so many scriptures that could be cited in this regard, that one answer probably can't cover all of this question.

I try to use the most clear scriptures I can find. Obviously there are many New Testament scriptures that could be used, as well as from the Book of Mormon, but nevertheless I choose these:

Doctrine and Covenants 14:9

  9 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, who created
  the heavens and the earth, a light which cannot be hid in darkness;

Doctrine and Covenants 19:1-4

  1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the
  beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

  2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am,
  even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue
  all things unto myself—

  3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works
  at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I
  shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according
  to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

  4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

Answer above, clean-up of confusion (or confusion itself) below.

It should also be stated that we don't believe in a trinity. Rather, The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God (and they are distinct beings). Together they are what we call the Godhead, each having their role, but all being united in purpose. The Son worships the Father, as manifested in scripture more than enough, and so should we. The Son is subject to the Father, and we are subject to them. Eventually, we shall be heirs to the Father, rising as Jesus has, being joint heirs with Christ.

Romans 8:16-17

  16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
  children of God:

  17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
  Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also
  glorified together.

There is no diminuitive to the title "God", there is no "lesser God". Jesus is God.


Do Young Earth Creationists believe that insects, microorganisms, and animal cells died before the Fall? As explained in answers to other questions,1 2 young-earth creationists (YECs) believe that there was no animal death prior to the Fall.  They accept that plants must have "died," since man and now-carnivorous mammals were then herbivores (Genesis 2:16).

Besides plants, do YECs believe that anything else died before the fall?  Examples that come to mind are insects, microorganisms, and animal cells (such as human skin cells).

Is there general agreement among YECs as to where to draw the line? On what basis do they draw it?

1 Before the fall of Adam, did anything die?
2 Does the Bible say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous?

This article on the Answers In Genesis website is a good introduction:

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/

One short quote:

  The Bible never uses the Hebrew term nephesh chayyah (living soul/creature) when referring to invertebrates, but it does when referring to humans and fish (Genesis 1:20; 2:7). Also, insects do not have the same sort of “blood” that vertebrates do, yet “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11) (Sarfati 2004, p. 211). It is reasonable then to assume that the pre-Fall diet of animals could have included invertebrates.

Thus the distinction is between creatures with a certain kind of blood and the breath of life and those that do not. Creatures that lacked the breath of life and blood were subject to death, but that death has no spiritual component and is not the sort of death ushered in by the fall.

UPDATE:
As to the second question about whether God created carnivores, I know of no scriptural evidence, but there is anecdotal evidence that carnivores can live on fruits and vegetables. Here are two articles, one about a lion that refused to eat meat and lived a long, healthy life, and the other about how crocodiles love to eat fruit.

https://answersingenesis.org/reptiles/fruit-eating-crocodiles-dispel-carnivorous-misconceptions/

http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat


Are there any denominations that reject Mary's virgin conception of Jesus? Its hard to reconcile her virgin conception of Jesus with being a descendant of David since the genealogies in Matthew and Luke go through Joseph, who (according to the virgin conception theory) was not really Jesus' father.  Meaning, Jesus ends up with no genealogy at all, and since the Jews only accept genealogies through a father, literally he becomes genealogyless; and this has been the number one reason for Jews rejecting Jesus for as long as the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke have been in those gospels (I don't know how long that is).

Hence the question, Are there any denominations that reject her virgin conception?  Maybe some Messianic groups that believe they will be in a better position to reach the Jews by doing so?

Yes, some denominations think the Bible is a compilation of stories with moral content. They do not believe most of it is factual, including Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary. Some United Churches lean this way.

(My comment is supported by speaking with United Church adherents personally (extended family members) and hearing them tell me they believe the Bible is comprised of non-factual stories with moral content, many even thought to be fictitious) They informed me that their pastor teaches this way. This would be considered one of the very liberal United Churches.)

Here is a link to a United Church newspaper with a discussion between two lady ministers, one of them an atheist, to support the point that the Bible and its' content including the Virgin Mary and her conception of Christ without the help of a human man, is not necessarily believed, even by the clergy of this denomination. Point in fact, the minister in this article is not only not a believer in the Bible record of the Virgin Mary, but this minister herself does not even believe in God!

http://www.ucobserver.org/features/2013/10/beyond_belief/

Note: quote from article:

"Vosper: *So let other denominations do it, and let The United Church of Canada — which is the only denomination on the planet that might ever actually say in its documents that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time — move forward into discourse with others*."

Inside the umbrella group of the United Church resides a variety of beliefs, from more conservative individual churches with their more conservative pastors, to liberal individual churches with their liberal pastors, and many that fall in between. All would be welcome and included under the umbrella name of United Church. This is one group that has included the ordination of practicing homosexual pastors in their rulings.

Believing in Mary as an actual virgin who conceived Christ without the help of a human male contributor, would be optional in this denomination at best, and you would find a wide variety of beliefs about Mary in the churches under the umbrella of this name.

As their article title suggests, they have gone "Beyond Belief", as a denomination, into the division of their denomination into subgroups from which only thirteen percent  believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary with no human male father, as the following UC article communicates.

http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2011/07/traditionalist/

quote from above:

"To 13 percent of survey respondents, however, it is straightforwardly true that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died to save humanity or individuals from sin and rose physically from the dead."

This shows that 87 percent of those UC-ers asked about Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, did not believe that He was.