God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today? As the title states. God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today?

There are people who claim God commanded them to Kill. Is this legit? Or is there clear evidence in the Bible that goes against this?

Examples of God commanding people to Kill in the Old Testament:

  1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
  they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
  suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

  NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who
  "completely destroyed them and their towns."

  NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite
  children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for
  yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins
  were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women
  were virgins?)

There are lots of sources out there:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

I understand that most of this makes sense in context of the Old Testament. But what about people who kill today and say God commanded them to? Is this legit? Can we deny their claim?

While God did command nations to kill, it's important to remember that he never commanded individuals to kill devoid of their representing a nation.

So no, I don't think you could say that it is legit for any single individual to claim that God commanded them to kill.  On the contrary, one of the ten commandments is, "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13).  The word that God uses for murder is different than the word that is used to mean "kill" when it is carried out in war.

So to answer your question, yes.  You can deny their claim.  They were not told by God to murder.

You can read more about the words used here.


Is calling the church the "body of Christ" merely a metaphor or is there a deeper significance? In numerous places in the New Testament the church is called the "body of Christ." Is this merely a metaphor for the church's role or is it related to the doctrine of the incarnation?

I suspect it is merely a metaphor but, even so, may shed some light on the incarnation, but I don't know how. A little help would be nice.

As is so often the case with questions such as yours, it's not a matter of "either/or" but "both/and."
Let's put it this way: the comparison between the church universal ("the holy catholic Church"--the Apostles' Creed) and a body is both an analogy and a metaphor. The expression of the church as a body is presented perhaps no more clearly than in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26, where we read,

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. . . . Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers . . ." (vv.12-14, and vv.27,28a).

Notice that the analogy comes first:

". . . as the body is one . . ." (v.12).

The word as, as I was taught since elementary school is one of the words which signals a simile (the other word being the word like). For example,

"As one whom his mother comforteth , so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 66:13 KJV).

Or,

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me" (John 15:4 KJV).

[Notice: in each of the above verses, the emphasis is mine!]
Think of an analogy as an extended simile, or a simile that is expanded to include at least one analog, or point of comparison, but usually two or more analogs, or points of comparison. The analogy of the vine in John 15, for example, indicates in "Miller's analogy-type" format,

Grapes:vine::fruit:abiding (or, "grapes are to vine, as fruit is to abiding").

[Logicians: please don't correct my Miller's analogy. I know it's not perfect!]
In a less formal way, we could go on to say that abiding in the vine and drawing sustenance from the branches of the vine via the root system is analogous to abiding in Christ and drawing our spiritual sustenance from Him. In other words, the water and nutrients from the soil which nourish the vine are analogous to Christ's power and purity in us as we attach ourselves by faith to Him.
If a poor interpreter were to force the analogy to include the idea that all Christians must paint their faces purple so that they more closely resemble grapes, then we know the analogy has been pushed too far! All analogies break down at some point, but if not pushed too far, they serve as an excellent pedagogical tool.
A metaphor, on the other hand, is perhaps both a little easier and harder to understand than an analogy/simile. First of all, a metaphor does not clue us in with the word "like" or the word "as." In 1 Corinthians 12, verse 27, Paul says,

"Now you are Christ's body . . .."

We know, of course, that neither the worldwide church of Jesus Christ nor any given local church is literally Christ's body. Christ, as a flesh and bone human being, ascended into heaven 40 days after His resurrection. That's why "you ARE Christ's body" is a metaphor, or as we learned in English class, a comparison which does not use the word "like" or "as" to signal its presence.
Instead of, or in place of, His human body on earth, Jesus has given us His Spirit to comfort, teach, empower, counsel, lead, guide, rebuke, and encourage us.
Whereas in the verses 12-26, Paul uses an analogy, in verses 27 and 28, he uses a metaphor, and he makes it crystal clear that the body is the church; the body of Christ = the church of Christ:

"Now you are Christ's body . . . and God has appointed in the church . . .."

Are we Christians literally the body of Christ on earth? No. We do function, however, as Christ's hands, feet, eyes, ears, tongues, and more, when we perform His bidding through His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) within us.
What is the biblical metaphor for Christ? For one thing, He is the head of the body.

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18 KJV).

There are, of course, many other metaphors for Christ, and He gave us a number of them in His teaching in the Gospels:

"I am the bread of life"

"I am the resurrection and the life"

"I am the true vine, and my father is the vinedresser"

"I am the Good Shepherd"

"I am the way, the Truth, and the life"

"I am the door of the sheepfold"

"I am the water of life"

In conclusion, I find your linking of the body metaphor and Christ's incarnation to be quite perceptive! If we kind of "unpack" the metaphor (which is not strictly biblical, but true nevertheless), it won't be long until we realize that yes, in the church age, prior to Christ's return, the church functions as Christ's bodily presence on earth in and through each and every one of His disciples, each of whom is a part of His body, whether a foot, an ear, an eye, or a hand.


What is according to the RCC the creation story in Genesis? Is the creation of Adam and eve a real event in history or is this just a story which actually never really happened and can it according to RCC also be seen as a methaphore? Or is it 'just' a spiritual reality? If so, does this induce problems with the reality of our Earth and other creations?

The Catholic Church teaches, in the decisions of the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (Latin original), that

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events [rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant], no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.


Does the Bible say anything about chimeras or explains their purpose? Firstly, I'm sorry if it's not the right place to ask this kind of question. I didn't know where else I could ask about it.
I'm interested in Simon de Myle's painting of the ark. In the middle of the painting, on the right, one may see a chimera/dragon devouring a man.
I was wondering whether the Bible says anything about chimeras. And if so, how the one of de Myle's painting can be explained. Why a dragon and why devouring a man?
Was it only an artistic vision?

The only strange animals in the Bible are the pre-historic ones mentioned in Job

Leviathan
Rahab (Also psalm 89)

and

Behemoth

Imaginationless bible scholars have equated Behemoth and Leviathan with hippos and crocodiles.  And I answered this question about Rahab a while back, she sounds pretty interesting, probably some sort of dragon!

and the giants called the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4, but they'd be dead by then I think - they certainly weren't on the ark.

and the talking donkey of Balaam in Numbers 22, but God made the donkey talk so he's not that strange of a beast.

A better answer hopefully can comment on Simon De Myle's style, but in the "Here be dragons" style of the map making of the time (1570, there's no reason to think that these creatures weren't talked about or expected to exist in the far reaches of the earth at the time.


Is Joseph Smith the last prophet? Islam has a concept that Muhammad is the last prophet of God(Allah). The last message from God was revealed to Muhammad, as they claim. Joseph Smith also received a unique and new revelation from God. And may be the last revelation, that I don't know. I don't mean to relate them but that's how it appears to me.

According to the Latter Day Saints, is Joseph Smith the last prophet of God?

According to lds.org:

  As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

It appears that, instead of being the last, Joseph Smith is considered to be the first in a long line of modern-day prophets.


New Testament terms for the people of God I commonly hear Christians refer to themselves either with that terms, "Christians," or as "believers". However, when I read the New Testament, particularly Paul's epistles, these do not strike me as the foremost terms that are used to refer to the people of God. In the New Testament, and particularly from the Acts of the Apostles onwards, what terms are used to refer to Christians, and with what frequency? Which are most prominent? I am particularly interested in the relative frequency of "Christian," "believer," and "saint," but an inclusion of other titles would also be helpful.

Interesting question. From what I can tell 'brother' if the most common term, followed by saints and believers, far behind in second place. Christian is what outsiders called the believer so it is last.

Here are the hits based on the greek words;

Χριστιανός Christiania; Christian 3

πιστός pistos -believers,faithful 53

ἅγιος hagios - saints 61

ἀδελφός adelphos -brethren 226
(brother 113)

My take on these is we are to feel bound to one another as a close knit family. However we need not become legalistic about it, for in our Culture I think we have revised the meaning of Christian to hold that same proud bond we share with each other.

Right brothers and sisters?


Does the catechism teach not to kill animals for food? The Catechism teaches that we “owe” animals “kindness.”

2457 Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them
kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's
needs.

Reference.
Does this mean we shouldn't kill animals for our food? Or what does the "just satisfaction" mean in this statement?

From what you have quoted I would say that we can kill animals for food.

"Just satisfaction" meaning to satisfy our reasonable needs - e.g., we need food to live.

That we need to treat them kindly speaks to how they are allowed to live and that we "dispatch" them with out causing pain or distress.

This, in my opinion, affects the eggs and chickens we buy - an industrial form of agriculture that has seen much ill-treatment of the animal in the name of profit.


How do we know that Satan, Lucifer, and Devil are the same guy? Satan seems like God's prosecutor in Job.
Lucifer is just the planet Venus that's used to describe king of Tyre.
Then Jesus talks about the devil once in Matthew http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=KJV

Are those the same guy?

They look like a bunch of different guys

The Bible says the devil = Satan in Revelation 12:9

  So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the
  Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the
  earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regarding Lucifer the Bible says in Isaiah 14:12...

  How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you
  are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

So this Lucifer fell from heaven, and Jesus said in Luke 10:18

  “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Thus Lucifer = Satan.  Name changes often denote changes in character in the Bible, thus Lucifer the light bearer (once a good angel) had become Satan (the adversary).

Learn more Bible truth at - http://www.amazingfacts.org/


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit will sometimes choose not to lead? (Somewhat related to At what level of detail does God lead His children?)

Here, I am going to make a couple assumptions.

The person has the Holy Spirit in them.
The person follows the Holy Spirit's leading at all times (or as much as they can).

Now, what I'm wondering is: does the Holy Spirit ever say something like, "Up to you"?

What is the Scriptural justification for the idea that the Spirit will explicitly give the Christian a choice (instead of a mandate) when the Christian asks for guidance?

If we look at Pauls life, he had a call to preach the Gospel. But I think it's safe to say that within that call he had a big freedom. He used the brain God had given him to plan his journeys:

Acts 20:13-16:

  We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going
  to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going
  there on foot. When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went
  on to Mitylene. The next day we set sail from there and arrived off
  Chios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the
  following day arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past
  Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in
  a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost.

But there where other situations when the Holy Spirit intervened in Pauls plan.

Acts 16:6-9:

  Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and
  Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word
  in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they
  tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them
  to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the
  night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging
  him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

I would argue that this also applies to us. God has a great plan for all of our lives. But that doesn't mean that he always care about all the details. Some people like repairing cars, so they make the decision to work with that. But within that context, the Holy Spirit leads them to speak to customers for example. But for other people God intervenes in their plan and call them to do something else.

But maybe I read to much out of these texts ;)


Do spirits need bodies to manifest? Every instance in the Bible where a spirit, (including for the most part God) speaks to a physical person, or moves a physical someone it is done in a body or through another person that possesses a physical body. Is it necessary for a spirit to have a body to manifest?

As a lifelong Protestant whom most people accept as being 'evangelical' I would say the following :
There are many examples and this is but one [Acts 8:27-29, KJV] :

Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Here we see God, the Holy Spirit, communicate directly to Philip, in spirit, without any physical intervention, without any other agency and without any manifestation.

From the OP's comments I would suggest it may be helpful to consider I Theesalonians 4:14 :

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.[KJV]

Human minds are immaterial but require the material presence of a brain in order to communicate intelligently and logically. The question of whether a human spirit can 'communicate' without a brain or by by-passing the brain is somewhat hypothetical.
Disembodied human spirits 'sleep'. And the question of 'communication' then becomes totally hypothetical. If we die in the Lord, we shall experience whatever that 'sleep' is.
The disembodied spirit of the rich man (who did not help the beggar Lazarus) 'communicated' with Abraham (perhaps) or possibly experienced something within himself, in hades, which Jesus attributes to a likeness of communication with Abraham.
Myself, I do not think we have sufficient information in scripture to answer the question. As I say, we may experience something in the future, if the Lord tarries.
It is an interesting question, however, and I did up-vote it.
We are what we are. And what we are, is what God made us to be. And we can only express ourselves (in prayer, particularly, as the OP comments) in spirit and in understanding with a human spirit and with a human mind.
Yet, if we receive and believe the Gospel and are justified by faith we shall receive the Holy Spirit in a union of spirit, within our own spirit. Then shall we pray in the Spirit and with our own understanding.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. I Corinthians 14:15, KJV.]


What if we were not tempted by the devil but rather, we failed God's test? The bible lets us know that God does not tempt us into evil.

  James 1:13
  "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;"

but rather, He examines our minds and hearts to know if we truely keep his commands.

  Jeremiah 17:10
  “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct,    according to what their deeds deserve.”

My question is, what becomes of us if we fail his tests? What if Abraham failed the test to obey?  If we suffer the same consequences  as those led astray by the devil, then what difference does it make whether God leads us into temptation or not?

I have checked the relevant tags but none of the posts seem to answer on the results of failing God's tests.

In the great Intercessory Prayer Christ prays that God will keep those disciples given to him and any that believe on their word un-spotted from the world then in verse 23 he says something crucial to remember about God's motivation vs. the devils motivation

  (KJV) John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.

What God does He does out of love, in fact as we read here He does it out of the same love that He had for the Savior. If God tests us and we fail that test, because He loves us the Savior has already provided a way to say "I'm sorry I will try harder next time." Also when God is testing us He will support us and give us strength to make it through that test (great example of this is David and Goliath). If we have enough faith. This is a key difference between God and the devil. God will always love and support us, while the devil will get us to follow him but never offer support; and once he has us chained he will abandon us. Something that God would never do.

So in summery the answer to what becomes of us is simple. Its what we choose to let happen. God will love us still and if we decide to follow Him despite the trial and our perceived failure of that trial, then a way is provided for us to do so. If we decide not to, well then we have chosen to serve the devil and he will bind us just as surly as if we had sinned. Because in the end turning from God is a sin.


What are the differences between Mormonism and Islam, and how do Mormons react to comparisons with it? Before anything else, a point of order.  This question has the ability to be construed as mean-spirited towards my Mormon brothers.  I'd like to hope that I have the credibility on this site to be believed when I say, this question is NOT intended as a forum in which to bash Mormons.  Answers that are not respectful to Mormons will be downvoted by me and will NOT be accepted.

So, when I was with Baptist missionaries in Kazakhstan, I first heard the line that "You know, Mormons and Muslims are almost exactly the same religion."  They both claim that the Bible needed updating, they both deny the Trinity, they both tend to emphasize works over faith, they both are revelations by an Angel to a conveniently placed prophet, they both divide heaven into different levels for increasing belief, etc... And, recently I watched this 6 minute video from a Lutheran making a very similar claim.  To an evangelical or another Christian predisposed towards rejecting Mormon claims, it's very persuasive stuff.

As such, I'd like to hear the counter-claim.  How does the Mormon church react to being so closely compared to the Muslim religion?  My suspicion, of course, is that the Mormon church rejects such comparisons, but I wonder what aspects of the faith they would use to differentiate themselves from Islam.  Likewise, the video linked above is short enough to be fact-checked and debunked.  Lutheran Satire is normally fairly level-headed (although deliciously funny, such as when they skewer Westboro Baptist Church). So, what is the case that Islam and Mormons have nothing in common?

From an LDS perspective, Islam actually looks much more like traditional Christianity than Mormonism, because, despite the similarities mentioned above, it lacks what Latter-Day Saints consider one of the most important features of their faith: continuing revelation.

The simple fact of the matter is that Islamic doctrine ends with its "conveniently placed prophet," whereas Mormonism begins there.  Islam, much like conventional Christianity, has a closed canon and a belief that, after a certain arbitrary point in the distant past, no more prophets or scriptural revelation are given, or have been needed.

By contrast, the modern successors to Joseph Smith and the Apostles who presided over the church in his time are considered to have the same authority and divine responsibility today as their mid-19th century counterparts.  In fact, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, proclaimed that this is an essential feature of Mormonism:

  It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all.

  -- Addendum to the first Official Declaration, emphasis added.

The importance of continuing revelation and the continuity of the authority of the church is also underscored in four of the thirteen Articles of Faith, which Joseph Smith wrote as a brief synopsis of the fundamental principles of LDS doctrine:

  5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

  6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

  7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

  ...

  9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

While many superficial similarities exist between Mormonism and Islam (or, to be honest, between just about any two religions you could name,) the idea of continuing revelation, that the heavens are not sealed, that prophecies and divine leadership and guidance from the Lord have not ceased, is quite a unique thing, particularly among the Abrahamic religions.


What is the Etymology of the Name of Jesus? What is the origin of Jesus' Name?  Is it derived from the Greek god, "Zeus"?

Here's some context for my question. At my church this Sunday a woman told me that the name "Jesus " was derived from the Greek god "Zeus" when it was translated over time by Greek scholars.

Is there any truth in this? Please feel free to give me the name his disciples would call him, and other names he has been called in the scriptures too.

1. Question Restatement :

Is there textual / literary evidence that "Jesus" is a name derived from "Zeus"?
What is the Etymology of the Name, "Jesus"?

2. Answer - The Names Jesus and Zeus are not Related Etymologically :

The Greek Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the clearest evidence that the name "Jesus" is absolutely a transliteration of the Hebrew name: "Joshua", from Hebrew Scripture.

3. The Name - "Zeus", in Greek :

Ζεύς | Zeus, Logeion Lexicon - is represented in Greek in many ways, but: "Ζεύς" is the most recognized, (but also written as "Διός | Dios"; and also as "θεός | Theos".  "Theos" is the same word used for "God", (the Father), in Scripture.

The spelling and morphology of the name: "Zeus" - is very different than: "Jesus".

  Autenrieth-Homer, Morphology of Zeus, (From Logeion) - Ζεύς (Διεύς, root διϝ), gen. Διός, dat. Διί, acc. Δία, voc. Ζεῦ, also gen. Ζηνός, dat. Ζηνί, acc. Ζῆν(α): Zeus (Diespiter, Juppiter; cf. Ζεῦ πάτερ, ... etc.

  Aeschin. 1:28 - Such a man, then, he forbids to speak. And right he is, by Zeus, say I!

  τοῦτον οὐκ ἐᾷ λέγειν. νὴ Δία καλῶς γε, ὡς ἔγωγέ φημι. διὰ τί; ὅτι εἴ τις, οὓς ἐξ ἴσου δεῖ τιμᾶν τοῖς θεοῖς

4. Historical Roots of the Name - "Jesus" :

In Greek, Jesus / Ἰησοῦς is actually a transliteration of one name - that has two forms :

Joshua | Yeshua | יֵשׁ֨וּעַ, appears as a later Hebrew/Aramaic name - and is itself another transliteration (or Aramaicism) of ...
"יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua, in the older Hebrew texts;

The Hebrew name "יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua" is considered to mean : "God Saves", (Strong's Concordance).

In Greek texts, Both יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua and Joshua | Yeshua | יֵשׁ֨וּעַ are transliterated into Greek into the same exact way : Ἰησοῦς .

"Jesus" In Greek:

  NASB, Matthew 1:1 - The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

  Byz, Matthew 1:1 - βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαυιδ υιου αβρααμ

Joshua | Jehoshua, the Son of Nun - Transliterated as Jesus:

  NASB, Numbers 13:12 - but Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun, Joshua.

  Septuagint, Numbers 13:16 - καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν

  Hebrew, Numbers 13:12 -  וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה לְהֹושֵׁ֥עַ בִּן־ נ֖וּן יְהֹושֻֽׁעַ׃

And:

  NASB, Deuteronomy 3:21 - I commanded Joshua at that time, saying,

  Septuagint, Deuteronomy 3:21 - καὶ τῷ Ἰησοῖ ἐνετειλάμην

  Hebrew, Deuteronomy 3:21 - וְאֶת־ יְהֹושׁ֣וּעַ צִוֵּ֔יתִי בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹ֑ר

Yeshua Also Transliterated as Jesus - During and After the Babylonian Exile and Aramaic Influence :

  Chronicles was "probably composed between 400–250 BC, with the period 350–300 BC the most likely", (Wikipedia, Books of Chronicles).

  WEB, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - Under him were Eden, and Miniamin, and Jeshua

  Septuagint, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - διὰ χειρὸς Οδομ καὶ Βενιαμιν καὶ Ἰησοῦς

  Hebrew, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - וְעַל־ יָדֹ֡ו עֵ֣דֶן וּ֠מִנְיָמִן וְיֵשׁ֨וּעַ וּֽשְׁמַֽעְיָ֜הוּ

5. The Name - "Jesus", in Syriac :

The name : ܝܫܘܥ / "Ishu'", (Matthew 1:18, Peshitta) - is the Syriac/Aramaic transliteration.  The Syriac is very close to the later "Yeshua" Aramaicism  - and certainly not the older Hebrew : "Joshua | Yehoshua".

The New Testament implies that Jesus perhaps had two names : a Hebrew name, "Immanuel", (Matthew 1:23); and the Greek/Aramaic name : "Iesos" and "Yeshua".


According to Catholicism, in what cases is Purgatory necessary? As I understand it, there are at least two "steps" necessary for a person to reach Heaven; I hope this description is valid from nearly all Christian viewpoints. First the person has to choose to follow Jesus, "believe". While willing to change in order to follow, there is not yet much outward evidence that he/she is a new person. Second, Christ is the one who changes the person (with the person's cooperation), and that is usually a gradual process.

Catholic doctrine accepts Purgatory as a place one may go to after death; as I understand it the primary purpose is to complete the change, so the person is ready for Heaven.

According to this answer, not only the thief on the cross but apparently many who are preparing for baptism or recently baptized when they die, have no need to spend time in purgatory.

In essence, Christ's "fishing strategy" seems to be:

Catch a fish (don't clean it first).
"Clean": sancify, make Holy, prepare for Heaven.
Harvest: Either at death or rapture, the person enters God's realm.
Purgatory: If necessary, complete the process of cleaning.
Process complete: The person is now a full citizen of Heaven.

Yet apparently for the thief on the cross and some new believers who die while awaiting or shortly after baptism, there is no need for the "cleaning" process, either on Earth or in Purgatory. Can someone explain the Roman Catholic view of this?

I hope my somewhat crude description is not offensive. I will change the language if it is a problem.

Very good question that I would like to see if I can answer to your satisfaction or at least give you some pointers to where to obtain a deeper understanding of the mystery of what happens to our soul after death. You can find biblical passages in my references that support this understanding by the Church and has been expanded and deepened over the centuries, but nevertheless, for sure, nobody knows, only God.

Purgatory is not only necessary for the reasons you list but also is necessary, but not limited to, erasing from our soul, not the sin per se, but the tendency for us to sin. Since we would go to purgatory "after" our personal judgement with Christ at which point we would have accepted Him or rejected Him.

This is call "Concupiscence." Here is an extract of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under this subject:

  Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

For an easy way to envision this, take this example: how come, even though Christ has forgiven us, in the case of Catholics via the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession or in protestant circles, by Accepting Christ as my Savior and be saved, we still sin and do bad things? It is very, very hard to work on our bad behaviors and tendencies and we see we fall again and again. I am talking here about the true at heart and honest to themselves believers, not the people that say one thing and do another or never had the intention to amend their ways.

So, purgatory is where we work away, with the Grace of God, that last remaining tendency to not do the will of God freely and instantly, with no second thoughts of what we want or what makes us feel good. It is the point where there is no distinction between our will and God's Will.

In the case of the Good Thief on the Cross, we do not know what that infusion of Grace my have been to participate and witness the agony and sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. He may have been transformed so deeply by the experience that when Christ says to him "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) his passage through Purgatory may have been just an instant or a few hours. Then again, we don't know what a day is (or the sense of today) in the language of eternity.

So, with God's infinity Mercy and Love, he has given way to ensure we have all that we would need in order stand in front of him in His Kingdom with a soul as pure and white as snow to praise and glorify him through eternity!

God bless!

Reference

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1031


Job 39:30 AND Matthew 24:28 Job 39:30 AND Matthew 24:28

  For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered
  together.

This is scripture regarding Christ's return.  My difficulty is in understanding why this referral to eagles and the dead is made.

I often turn to Biblical commentators when I have questions like this.  In my studies, I have found a few that, in my opinion, are consistently reliable; that is, their thoughts are founded on and derived from their knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages; as well as their understanding of scriptural and secular history.

Albert Barnes https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/matthew-24.html

"The words in this verse are proverbial.  Vultures and eagles easily ascertain where dead bodies are, and hasten to devour them.  So with the Roman army. Jerusalem is like a dead and putrid corpse. Its life is gone, and it is ready to be devoured. The Roman armies will find it out, as the vultures do a dead carcass, and will come around it to devour it. This proverb also teaches a universal truth. Wherever wicked people are, there will be assembled the instruments of their chastisement. The providence of God will direct them there, as the vultures are directed to a dead carcass."

Adam Clarke  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/matthew-24.html

"For wheresoever the carcass is - ...the dead carcass. The Jewish nation, which was morally and judicially dead."
"There will the eagles - The Roman armies, called so partly from their strength and fierceness, and partly from the figure of these animals which was always wrought on their ensigns, or even in brass, placed on the tops of their ensign-staves. It is remarkable that the Roman fury pursued these wretched men wheresoever they were found. They were a dead carcass doomed to be devoured; and the Roman eagles were the commissioned devourers. See the pitiful account in Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11."

Thomas Coke  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/matthew-24.html

"By the word carcase is meant the Jewish nation, which was morally and judicially dead, and whose destruction was pronounced in the decrees of heaven. Our Saviour, after his usual manner, applies a proverbial expression with a particular meaning: for as, according to the old proverb, wheresoever, &c. so wheresoever the Jews are, there will Christ be taking vengeance upon them by the Romans, who are properly compared to eagles, as the fiercest beasts of prey, and whose ensign was an eagle, to which also probably our Saviour in this passage alluded. And as it was said, so it was done; for the victories of the Romans were not confined to this or that place, but, like a flood, over-ran the whole land. There was no part of Judea that did not partake of the calamities of the captivity. At Antioch many were burnt in the theatre, and others were slain; the Romans slew them every where; at Jardes not fewer than three thousand were put to death. Being on the point of being taken at Masade, they first murdered their wives and children, and then themselves, to the number of nine hundred and sixty, to avoid falling into the enemies' hands. In Cyrene, the followers of Jonathan the weaver were most of them slain; he himself was taken prisoner, and, by his accusation, three thousand of the richest Jews were put to death."

John Gill  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/matthew-24.html

"For wheresoever the carcass is,.... Not Christ, as he is held forth in the Gospel, crucified and slain, through whose death is the savour of life, and by whom salvation is, and to whom sensible sinners flock, encouraged by the ministry of the word; and much less Christ considered as risen, exalted, and coming in great glory to judgment, to whom the word 'carcass' will by no means agree, and but very poorly under the former consideration: but the people of the Jews are designed by it, in their fallen, deplorable, miserable, and lifeless state, who were like to the body of a man, or any other creature, struck dead with lightning from heaven; being destroyed by the breath of the mouth, and brightness of the coming of the son of man, like lightning, just as antichrist will be at the last day:
"there will the eagles be gathered together: not particular believers here, or all the saints at the day of judgment; though these may be, as they are, compared to eagles for many things; as their swiftness in flying to Christ, their sagacity and the sharpness of their spiritual sight, soaring on high, and renewing their spiritual strength and youth: but here the Roman armies are intended, whose ensigns were eagles; and the eagle still is, to this day, the ensign of the Roman empire: formerly other creatures, with the eagle, were used for ensigns; but C. Marius, in his second consulship, banished them, and appropriated the eagle only to the legions: nor was it a single eagle that was carried before the army, but every legion had an eagle went before it, made of gold or silver, and carried upon the top of a spear...: and the sense of this passage is this, that wherever the Jews were, whether at Jerusalem, where the body and carcass of them was, in a most forlorn and desperate condition; or in any other parts of the country, the Roman eagles, or legions, would find them out, and make an utter destruction of them."

There are others I often turn to:  James Burton Coffman, Dr. Thomas Constable, Charles John Ellicott, and Matthew Henry.

You will note that the four commentators quoted all conclude that Jesus' words were not in regard to our day; but were a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I encourage you to maintain your interest in these matters!


Who are the "Non-Evangelical Protestants"? I think this is an important question, because there is this group called "Non-Evangelical Protestants" that research articles may use in order to distinguish them from "Evangelical Protestants" and "Catholics".

I have a hunch that they are "American Mainline Protestants".

You are correct in that "mainline Protestants" is the largest non-evangelical Protestant group in the U.S.  Wikipedia states that "The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3 percent while Roman Catholics are 22 percent and mainline Protestants make up 16 percent."

See this Pew Forum survey appendix that classifies various Protestant denominations into three traditions, "evangelical Protestant churches, mainline Protestant churches and historically black Protestant churches."


What is the origin of the account of Lucifer found in Milton's Paradise Lost? In Paradise Lost, Milton describes how Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast into Hell as a result. I've always wondered about the origin of this account since as far as I know, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Is it part of the Catholic creed (or the creed of any Christian denomination?) If so, what is the basis for it?

A partial answer may be found in Isaiah 14:12-15.

  How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
  You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens;
  I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
  I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
  I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
  But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (NIV)

Some interpret the fallen one as Lucifer, since in this passage he rebelled against God and attempted to set himself above God. He was cast down and thrown into the realm of the dead.


Why is everything created spiritually before physically? According to LDS doctrine, why are we created as spirits before we can receive a body? On earth, all creatures are born with the same bodies as their parents. In the preexistence, why are the children of God born/created out of different matter (spirits) than our heavenly parents? Our Father in Heaven is a physical being. If we are literal offspring of our Father in Heaven, then why aren't we born in the pre-earth life with a physical body, the same as our Father in Heaven?

Technically, we are not first created as spirits. This is a simplification. We existed as intelligences, which are not clearly explained, and later formed into our spirits by God.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. D&C 93:29

Speaking of this topic, Marion G. Romney has said:

In origin, man is a son of God. The spirits of men “are begotten sons
and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). Through that birth process,
self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit
beings.

After that physical form was created to house the spirits.

Our bodies, my brethren, our minds, are the tabernacles of our
spirits. - Gordon B. Hinkcley

By extension, it is reasonable to believe that all life also came from intelligences, which may not have been suited to become human. Therefore things are created or organized spiritually first, because without the spiritual existence there is no purpose in the physical creation.
For further reading, I recommend the article on Intelligences in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism


Salvation Possible After Death Which early church fathers (pre 500) taught it was possible for a person after their death to hear and receive salvation in Christ Jesus?

We know some groups teach the necessity of water baptism to be saved.  So for example, for them, a baby born but not baptized would be consigned to hell.

Who taught it is possible to be saved even after one died, rather than go to and stay in hell for all eternity?

KJV 1 Peter 4:1-6, but especially verse 6, might have a bit of an answer about this idea in the decades after Christ left the earth.

  6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but
  live according to God in the spirit.

To me that means that the basic doctrinal text of Christianity doesn't entirely preclude the notion. The prime example of teaching this doctrine would actually be Peter.

Whether or not pre-500 orthodox clergymen actually taught it as Peter said it is obviously going to be less common. I don't know any specifics.

I would count being able to come to Christ and learn of Him postmortem to be about as good as baptism as you can get when you're dead, since most Christians' definition of the afterlife and what we can do in it are really fuzzy.

However, the only specific denomination of Christianity I know of that practices any sort of proxy ordinance for the dead (baptism being the first) is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Cit: I'm a member.


What is the difference between Heaven and Paradise? In this question, under Mawia's answer, Narnian made the comment:

  This uses an example taken from before payment for sins were made. Thus, it does not refer to heaven, but to Paradise

What is the difference between "heaven" and "paradise"?

In the LXX, the Greek word παράδεισος (paradeisos) was used to translate the Hebrew phrase גַּן עֵדֶן (gan eden), otherwise known in English as "the Garden of Eden" (cp. LXX Gen. 3:24).

Παράδεισος occurs in the LXX in:

  Gen. 2:8-10, 2:15-16, 3:1-3, 3:8, 3:10, 3:23-24, 13:10; Num. 24:6; 2 Chr. 33:20; Eccl. 2:5; Song 4:13; Sir. 24:30, 40:17, 40:27; Psa. Sol. 14:3; Joel 2:3; Isa. 1:30, 51:3; Jer. 36:5; Eze. 28:13, 31:8-9; Sus. 1:4, 1:7, 1:15, 1:17-18; 1:20, 1:25-26; 1:36, 1:38, 1:54

Παράδεισος occurs in the ΝΤ in:

  Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7

Yeshu'a told the thief on the cross, «σήμερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ», that is, "Today you shall be with me in the Paradise."

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paulos wrote how "a man in Christ...was caught up unto the third heaven." He then elaborates that this man was likewise "caught up into the Paradise" (ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον).

Some interpret this as meaning that this man was caught up unto the third heaven and then into Paradise. If this is so, should we understand it that the Paradise is even higher and loftier than the third heaven?


Are our sins of the future forgiven? (John 20:23) Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven (unless we confess them in the future) and say that John 20:23 (and maybe other verses which I can't remember), uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven.

Is this interpretation justified?  What information there is on the verb "forgiven" here, and in other verses, that may support or contradict this interpretation?

The OP asks:

  Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven...and say that John 20:23...uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven. What information there is on the verb "forgiven” here...?

Since nobody seems to have addressed the issue of verb tense here, I’ll give it a try. The verb in question is infected as a third person plural, perfect passive indicative.1

  ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς...
  If you (pl.) forgive the sins of any (pl), they are forgiven them...

The identification of this verb as "past" in the question presumably derives from the perfect tense. However, aspect rather than time is the primary value of the Greek tenses. People argue2 about the extent to which Greek verbs contain time information at all.

Regardless of your stance on Greek tenses, the understanding of ἀφέωνται here is heavily tied up with the fact that it forms the apodosis of a conditional statement.3  The form – (ε)αν + subjunctive + any mood/tense –  is known as a third class conditional. Note in that formula the lack of specification of the mood or tense of the apodotic verb. For the purpose of framing the contingency, that is largely irrelevant.3

This is not to say that the perfect inflection is irrelevant to the meaning. Perfect verbs nearly always carry a strong aspectual component - i.e., the action is completed. Here, the relevance is that the forgiveness is complete at the time that it is realized, whenever that might be. This is known (in some circles) as a proleptic perfect. The timing is dependent on the timing of the protosis. Here the aorist subjunctive ἀφῆτε provides almost no intrinsic time information. Contextually, these are anticipated as future events, consequent to the commissioning and receiving of the holy spirit in the prior verse.

In summary, there is no "past tense" here. The combination of the verbal inflection and the conditional construction tell us that the forgiveness is complete at the time that the (apostles') forgiving occurs.4 Context tells us that these events are future to the time of Jesus’ speaking. Going beyond that (regarding timing) based on this passage alone seems to me misguided. Others have addressed external considerations that may be relevant.

Notes

1. There is a significant text variant here. This perfect quoted here from NA27/28 (=UBS4) was given a {B} ("almost certain") rating by the UBS Committee. The Textus Receptus, with the Byzantine mss, has the present ἀφίενται; Sinaiticus has the future ἀφεθήσεται (reflected also in most of the Latin tradition); the perfect adopted here is supported by Alexandrinus, Bezae, several major families of miniscules, and probably Vaticanus (although spelled differently). This decision was defended by Metzger in his textual commentary on the basis that the present and future are likely scribal simplifications of the perfect (in addition to the external evidence).

2. Passionately. This debate is sometimes referred to as the Porter/Fanning debate in recognition of two scholars who published pioneering works in the area. An introduction to the issue by D.A. Carson, published as the first chapter in a book that contained some of the most important evaluations of their theories, is a good place to start if interested.

3. The apodosis is the “then” statement of an “if... then...” contingency. The protasis (“if...”) here is introduced with ἄν, standing for ἐάν, an abbreviation that “is rare in Hellenistic Greek....but appears....John 20:23” (BDAG).

4. James Boyer has argued that "all third class conditions are essentially future contingencies". I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t agree with him completely on the all bit, but this is certainly a very common scenario.

5. It is, unfortunately, impossible to express "to be complete" and "to occur" in English as a finite verbs without any time implications. Present tense is, by my reckoning, as close as we come, but realize that these may be past, present, or future.


Is a Catholic "blessing of a marriage" not a wedding? Consider the following case:

A Catholic woman marries an unbelieving man (in particular, a man not baptised in any Christian denomination) in a state ceremony. Following an adulterous episode on the man's part, and a reconciliation, the man is baptised and the couple's priest performs what he describes as a "blessing" of the marriage [such "blessings", so called in laymen's terms, are not uncommon: see this post on a Catholic parish website, for example] but termed it "not a wedding."

After some time, the couple separate, but do not divorce. Later still, the woman desires a divorce.

What, exactly, is the nature of this blessing? How does it affect the status or validity of the marriage?
If the couple obtains a civil divorce, may the woman marry again in the Catholic Church? May she receive the sacraments? Does the fact of the man's adultery affect the answer to these questions?

"Blessing of a marriage", as explained by a canon lawyer and the staff of a Catholic parish, is a fairly standard laymen's term which can be used for one of two processes recognized by Catholic canon law as allowing a marriage to be recognized as valid in the Catholic Church.
The Church's Code of Canon Law has a whole section on marriage (canons 1055–1165). Among the regulations it lays down are some having to do with how and where the marriage may take place (the form of the marriage), and some having to do with who may and who may not be married. Under certain conditions, the bishop of the diocese to which Catholics belong may waive most of these regulations in a specific case; but if this waiver (called a dispensation) is not obtained, the marriage is considered invalid by the Church, either because of impediment (a "who may and may not marry" rule was broken), or because of defect of form (a "how and where" rule was broken).
This marriage certainly appears to have been considered invalid by the Church (otherwise the priest would not have felt the need to have it "blessed"). Why?
The Church requires that Catholics marry in their own parish (unless they receive a dispensation to marry elsewhere):

Canon 1115. Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.

Thus, a marriage such as this—in a state ceremony (at a registry office, town hall, etc.) without a dispensation, which appears not to have been obtained in this case—has a defect of form.
In addition, Catholics require special permission to marry non-Catholics:

Canon  1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

This too is a canon which can be dispensed; but again it appears that no dispensation was obtained in this case. Thus the marriage, as well as suffering from defect of form, also suffers from an impediment. Or rather, it originally suffered from it. Since the man was baptised into the Catholic Church, the impediment "ceased" (in technical terms) before the marriage was blessed.
Thus the original marriage was invalid because it suffered from both defect of form and impediment. Later, the couple wants it to be recognized in the Church's eyes. What can be done about that?
The Church has two processes that can be used, as I stated, to restore the marriage to one considered valid, and both of these are typically referred to as "blessing the marriage". It appears that one of these is what was done by the priest.
Simple convalidation is a procedure done when there was no defect of form in the marriage, only an impediment (which has since ceased, or been dispensed). As canon lawyer Cathy Caridi explains:

Speaking generally, this would likely be the method used if (a) the impediment had become a matter of public knowledge; or (b) one or both spouses had known from the get-go that the impediment existed, and had for whatever reason managed to conceal it.

In this case, if only one spouse knew of the impediment, he or she would simply renew consent to the marriage (as one does with wedding vows) in private, without needing to inform the other spouse. If both spouses knew, but no one else, the spouses would each renew consent to the other (effectively re-exchanging wedding vows) in private, before the priest, and that would be it. If the impediment has become public knowledge, then canon law would require public exchange of consent "in canonical form"—effectively, a new marriage ceremony:

Canon  1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1127, §2. [i.e. subject to any specific rules laid down by the bishop]
§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

In all these cases, simple convalidation results in the marriage being considered valid only from the time when the marriage was convalidated, not from the original wedding.
But that doesn't seem to have been the case here: there was not only an impediment to the marriage, but also a defect of form. In that kind of case a different sort of procedure is called for, also described informally as "blessing the marriage", but technically known as radical sanation.
Radical sanation would require the priest to request a dispensation (ex post facto) from the bishop for the state ceremony, and another for the marriage to a non-Catholic. If these were granted, the priest would ask the couple to declare their vows to each other once more, and then the marriage would be considered valid—not just from that point, but retroactively from the original ceremony.

AthanasiusOfAlex has posted an answer to part of the second question, but because of the already great length of this answer I would prefer to post that as a second response.


Why are sandals considered to be unholy? As I was reading Exodus 3 chapter 5, this passage got my attention.

  Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

Why it is considered as unholy?  Even in churches they are said to remove your sandals and shoes.  When considered this as unholy, what about other things as our clothes, etc.

It's not so much that sandals or slippers are considered to be unholy, it's that they're dirty, and removing them is a sign of respect similar to removing one's hat when entering a building, or perhaps removing a nose ring when entering a strict parent's house.

From the United church of God's article on the subject:

  Taking off your sandals was like the old custom of a man taking off
  his hat when entering a building or greeting a lady—it was a token of
  respect.

  The ground was holy because of God's presence. People were to approach
  God with solemnity and humility. Taking off their sandals expressed an
  inward reverence through an outward behavior in their worship. Showing
  such respect avoids anything casual, sloppy or rude.

  Some Eastern religions today still require bare feet when entering
  their temples. Anciently the Greeks, in the worship of Diana and
  Jupiter, required worshippers to take off their shoes (Adam Clarke's
  Commentary, Exodus 3:5 ). A common custom in the Orient and for many
  in North America is to take off your shoes when entering a person's
  home. God Has a High Standard for Approaching Him

As to why...

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

  put off thy shoes—The direction was in conformity with a usage which
  was well known to Moses, for the Egyptian priests observed it in their
  temples, and it is observed in all Eastern countries where the people
  take off their shoes or sandals, as we do our hats. But the Eastern
  idea is not precisely the same as the Western. With us, the removal of
  the hat is an expression of reverence for the place we enter, or
  rather of Him who is worshipped there. With them the removal of the
  shoes is a confession of personal defilement and conscious
  unworthiness to stand in the presence of unspotted holiness.

Also, from the Pulpit Commentary (available at the link in the preceding section)

  Rather, "thy sandals." Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the
  Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in
  the land of Midian at this time. The practice of putting them off
  before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of
  a house, was, and is, universal in the East - the rationale of it
  being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them.


Did John Wesley admire and learn from Arminias or did he just have a couple similiar ideas? I do not know a lot about Wesley, but when I encounter him, I tend to like what he says, even though I am a Calvinist.

On the the other hand when I encounter people arguing for Arminian doctrines in Church history they seem like distrustfull shady sorts of weasles to me.  I just assumed Wesley did not really rely so much on Arminias, since I liked him and that it was a little harsh to accuse Wesley of being a total Arminian.

Does anybody have historic quotes from Wesley that show whether he truly admired Arminias?

I ask the question because my answer in this post has been partially questioned and it makes me doubt my perception of Wesley.

John Wesley was a five-point Arminian, but he accepted Calvinists as true Christians. He welcomed Calvinist preacher George Whitefield into the Methodist movement and sent him out to preach throughout the American colonies.

In much of Wesley's own preaching he focused on the things that we have in common as Christians, but you can see examples of his Arminianism in these sermons:

On Predestination: Wesley argues for free will; God's foreknowledge is simply a way of saying God is outside time and doesn't see past, present and future as we do.
On Working Out Our Own Salvation: Wesley describes the synergistic nature of salvation.
Justification by Faith: Wesley argues that justification is conditional on our faith.
Free Grace: Wesley asserts that grace is available to all, and that predestination is not a biblical doctrine.
Christian Perfection: Wesley's own contribution to Arminian theology, Christian Perfection is the doctrine that God wants to transform our lives completely until our sinful nature falls away and we willingly obey God in everything. Few people ever reach this state in this life.

Wesley also wrote a treatise entitled What Is an Arminian? Answered by a Lover of Free Grace, defending Arminius against Calvinist charges and calling for peace between Calvinists and Arminians.


If a Catholic priest absolves my sins without taking a confession, does it still count? This is a question about Catholicism, specifically Confession.

I intended to go to confession with my priest, but he was running late since Confession was just before Mass, and he told me to come back the next day. I did, and he didn't have me confess my sins; he only absolved me, since he was still in a rush. I want to trust that the absolution was valid, but I didn't have to say a word. Does this still count?

Without a doubt, no.

Intention, Form and Matter

The Church teaches that a sacrament of the Church consists in three necessary things:

The intention to effect the sacrament according to the mind of the Church on the the part of the minister thereof (i.e. not with some other intention alien to the purpose of the sacrament and to the Church).
The valid form (i.e. the prescribed words used during the administration of the sacrament: e.g. "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" for the Sacrament of Baptism).
The matter of the sacrament (the 'stuff' involved in constituting the sacrament validly: e.g. unleaved bread and grape wine for the Sacrament of Holy Communion).

In the case of the priest, he needs to use the valid form (words) of absolution. We can assume your priest knew the form and said it correctly. However, he did not have the matter of the sacrament, which are, in the case of confession: contrition for the sins committed (regret and sorrow for having sinned against God) and auricular confession of those sins.

A Few Reasons This Needs to be the Case

Scripture says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity" (1 John 1:9). Stopping by for the priest to pray over you is not the sacrament of confession, since he can't grant God's absolution without a confession; for the same reason a man or woman cannot bring about the sacrament of Matrimony without the equal consent of their partner. This is better understood when one realizes that the priest is a mediator of God's mercy, which implies that he has one hand to Christ and the other to you: you must participate—that's why you are there.
When Christ endows the Apostles with this priestly power of forgiving sins, he notably says "whose sins you shall hold bound, they shall remain bound" (John 20:23). This necessitates a discrimination between a confession for which he can grant absolution, and one for which he cannot—which requires his hearing the sins. Such an example might be if the penitent isn't... so penitent, since clear indication that the penitent is sorry for his sins is required for the priest to give absolution.

This is something about which the bishop might need to be alerted. This is quite a serious problem.


What is the process by which Pope Shenuda (Coptic) will be replaced? Following the death of the highest bishop of the Coptic church on March 17, 2012, what is the process by which he will be replaced?

The process by which Pope Shenuda's successor will be replaced can be found here.
The highlights are as follows:

Following Shenouda's death, the eldest member of the Holy Synod's archbishops will become acting pope until a new patriarch is seated. If the eldest archbishop, Anba Mikhail of Assiut, who was consecrated in 1946, declines to undertake the role, Archbishop Anba Pachomeus of Beheira, who was consecrated in 1971 and is the second eldest member of the Holy Synod, will become acting patriarch for two months until a new pope is elected.
The candidates are nominated through the Holy Synod (the highest authority in the church, comprising 120 archbishops), the Monks Synod, Melli Council members, dioceses, and members of the Coptic Councils in the People's Assembly and Shura Council.
According to Coptic Orthodox tradition, the pope is elected by a number of processes. Candidates, chosen among monks and archbishops, must be at least 40 years old and have been monks for at least 15 years. Following an election, the names of the three candidates with the most votes are written on pieces of paper and placed in a box to be picked by a child — not more than nine years old — whose eyes are closed.

The thing that I find fascinating about this is the element of the Holy Spirit, whose hand is forced into the selection process. (In the podcast "How to Do Everything?," the Yale Divinity Professor says this is the stated aim.)
In Ancient Israel, The Urim and Thummim were cast (essentially drawing lots) for things like this, and when the Disciples wished to replace Judas, they did the same thing.


Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent? I understand that officially speaking when Catholics pray to saints, they are not supposed to really pray TO that saint, but rather are asking that saint to pray for them as you would ask any living friend to pray for you.

The Bible does indeed say we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, but How is a particular saint supposed to hear me asking them to pray for me while John in England is asking the same thing. Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment? Is there any official doctrine explaining this? Are all the saints watching all the believers all the time, or what? Are they in many but not all places?
Bonus question, if a none-catholic christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?

Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment?

No they are not omnipresent (or omniscient for that matter), only God is. But they can hear our prayers by the power of God. Since we believe they are in heaven where they dwell in God, it is not strange that they can hear multiple 'messages' at the same time. Heaven is not present in "earth time." Heaven is outside of earth time, in-fact there is no time in heaven. Eternal now is that all is there. The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; So, They hear us through God.

  The saints are aware of our prayers is that, because they have the beatific vision of God, they see in God all of the knowledge they need, all of the knowledge that is relevant to them, and so they see our prayers to them. On the standard account is thus by the omniscience of God that they become aware of our prayers, though they themselves are never omniscient and never take in the full scope of God’s knowledge, only those parts that are relevant to them.James Akin

We do not expect them to be listening to us at "that moment", because they are not "in that moment", but they are out of it.

They hear us through God, more specifically Holy Spirit. In the Holy Spirit, we have communication with all the Saints, because of this, it is the Holy Spirit that unites us, spiritually. Bible says that it is the Holy Spirit who prays on our behalf.Romans 8:26 So it not not a big deal for God to make this happen.

Bonus question, if a non-catholic Christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?

Yes they do.


What will happen to the Trinity when the Bride of Christ is revealed? Are there any Christian teaching that address What will happen to the Trinity when the “Bride of Christ” is established, will it then be a Quadrinity?

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

No, at least in the context of mainstream Nicene (including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) I don't think there is any teaching about this. The reason being simple: it is a non issue. The very idea of this is not based on a classic understanding of the Trinity at all and therefore is not a problem for normal Trinatarian theology.

The basic idea here is that God is ONE being. Never mind the person aspect of his nature for the moment, that is irrelevant to the difficulty you are posing. You have one being, then a separate entity and a relation between them. The one being (esp when that being is God!) doesn't fundamentally change in nature based on the state of relationships with other beings. It is what it is.

Now you can throw the three persons of the Trinity back in the equation, but nothing changes. They are still God and God still has a relationship with his chosen people, his bride.


According to Catholic teaching and theology, can man ever see God as he really is? According to Catholic teaching and theology, can man ever see God as he really is?

Has anyone man ever seen God in the past? Who was it?

Will man be able to see God as he really is in the future?

What will enable man to do that?

According to Catholic teaching and theology, can man ever see God as he really is?

Not in this present life, when the soul is united to body.

St. Thomas, in addressing the question "Whether in the present state of life the contemplative life can reach to the vision of the Divine essence?," quotes St. Augustine, who says in his Literal Interpretation of Genesis xii, 27:

  no one seeing God lives this mortal life wherein the bodily senses have their play: and unless in some way he depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his body, or by withdrawing from his carnal senses, he is not caught up into that vision.

cf. 1 Cor. 13:12:

  We see now by a glass in the dark sort: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know as also I am known.

  Has anyone man ever seen God in the past? Who was it?

You may think Jacob saw the essence of God when he said in Gn. 32:30: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved." In reply to the first objection of the question "Whether anyone in this life can see the essence of God?," St. Thomas writes:

  when Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face," this does not mean the Divine essence, but some figure representing God.

  Will man be able to see God as he really is in the future?

Yes, but not of his own powers.

Answering the question "Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?," St. Thomas Aquinas explains why:

  It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated [in God's]. …

  What will enable man to do that?

God's grace.

Concluding from above, St. Thomas writes:

  … Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

Also, it must be kept in mind that "seeing God's essence" ≠ "comprehending Him" (i.e., 'completely knowing' or 'infinitely knowing' Him).

St. Thomas writes in the question "Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?:"

  God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Question [7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Also, Pope Benedict XII (1335-1342) in Benedictus Deus of January 29th 1336 defined it a dogma:

  We, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints […] already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven […] and these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature

(See this for background.)

As an aside, the schismatic Eastern 'Orthodox' disagree sharply with the above Thomist understanding of light of glory and seeing God's essence. For an excellent comparison of the two views, which really helps clarify the Thomistic view, see James Larson's article "A Study of The Radical Divide Between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Theology." Cf. also this video from an 'Orthodox''s perspective.


Dinosaurs offspring of demons? Have there been respected theologians that offer the possibility that dinosaurs were on the earth at about the same time as Nephelim and were the offspring of demon angels defiling the other species and causing mutations in for example reptiles just as occured with the mutated  Nephilim?

One such theory I found intriguing is found at this link.
http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2010/08/genetic-modification-of-humans-animals.html?m=1

The first step in looking for a respected theologian who can propose this view is to define how we know a theologian is respected, and I suggest a minimum requirement is that he or she is a theologian who has written works that are cited by his or her peers; a theologian is also likely to teach theology in a tertiary environment, but perhaps this is not so necessary for our purposes. Such a theologian would need to disbelieve most of the scientific evidence that we have about dinosaurs, including that a great many dinosaur species were quite small - even though popular imagination focusses on the few very large examples -  and that the last of the dinosaurs died out some sixty five million years ago. The theologians we are looking for  would therefore be proponents of Young Earth Creationism.

The author of this blogspot is a Young Earth Creationist, although the absence of a biography suggests he or she is not yet considered a respected theologian. This blog contains theological errors, even citing Genesis 3:14-25 to prove that Noah's bloodline hadn’t been contaminated by the fallen angels' and the Nephilim's genetic tinkering, when the nearest brief reference that could be interpreted in this way is at Genesis 6:9 (These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.) The blog also assumes the nephilim survived the Flood, against God's clear intention when he called down the Flood.

Allen Austin says that nephilim altered DNA to create dinosaurs. Austin has written and self-published (Xulon Press) two books about religion (The Middle of the Earth and The Messianic Temple) but provides no information about his academic status. I can find no online citations of his work by any theologians.

Rev. Daniel F. Owsley has written and self-published (Booktango) several books, including one called Dinosaurs Weren't Created By God, in which he states that the book was not written for Catholics or Protestants, but for Christians who know they are victorious or want to be. Owsley appears to be a  minister of religion but, in spite of the large number of self-published books, I can find no citations of them by any well-known theologians.

I am not personally aware of any respected theologians who offer the possibility that dinosaurs were on the earth at about the same time as nephilim and were the offspring of demon angels, and an online search has come up blank. This is not to say that there is no respected theologian who holds this view.  The nearest my search has come is Rev. Daniel F. Owsley, who has some credentials, as a minister of religion, and appears to believe that nephilim were responsible for the dinosaurs.


Are my feelings altered when I enter the Kingdom of Heaven? 5th Commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother

Hypothetically speaking, say my father has sinned, he doesn't believe in God and won't repent on his deathbed. By all of the standards of Christianity, he is going to go to Hell.

If I live my life according to God's word and make it in to Heaven, what happens to my dad? If I am not happy then it cannot be Heaven right?

I could NEVER be happy with the knowledge that my father was in agony for all eternity in hell. In fact, I can honestly say that the knowledge would be so horrific that I would consider it a type of hell. Obviously this cannot be the case.

There are, as I see it, only 3 options:
1) My dad makes it to Heaven with me.
This means there is no need to live a life without sin and be a believer. If he is allowed in Heaven then there is really no motivation/reason to live a pious, sin free life. Moreover, my father would have escaped the "justice" some people believe Hell provides. He may even meet his victim in Heaven which I am sure would not be their idea of Heaven. I think we can all agree, this option is not acceptable.
2) When I reach Heaven, I no longer care about my dad.
This means my mind has been changed without my consent (as I would never consent to this). I consider this losing my free will, this is not an option. If we lost our free will in heaven, what was the point in having it on Earth? (It is often said to be why there is suffering in the world)
3) I am told he is fine/happy (and I believe it).
I'm sure God could tell a convincing lie here but he wouldn't, this isn't an acceptable option in my opinion. It would mean Heaven was a lie and that God was willing to deceive me for eternity.

The problem doesn't have a solution that I can see but obviously there is one. Can somebody let me know God's solution please?

EDIT: I should say I am looking for an answer from a Catholic or Anglican perspective. The reason I think this question is different from "How can  I be happy in Heaven knowing loved ones are in Hell?" is that I don't want to presume that my loved ones aren't in Heaven with me or any alternatives that may exist that I haven't thought of (hence asking in the first place).

Can one be happy in Heaven, with loved ones in Hell?

Yes!

  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death'
  or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
  away." (Revelation 21:4, NIV)

If we would still be weeping in Heaven because our loved ones are in Hell, it won't be Heaven at all. Heaven is a place where there are no more tears, no more sorrows and the past is forgotten.

Peter Kreeft, a prominent theologian says,

  We know there is no sadness in Heaven: God "will wipe away every tear
  from their eyes" (Rev. 7:17). I think we will not be sad about the
  damned for the same reason God is not. According to the Sermon on the
  Mount, he will say to them, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23). God
  will wipe our memories clean. This is not falsehood or ignorance,
  but truth, for in a sense, the damned no longer are—that is, they no
  longer are in the most real place of all, Heaven. They no longer
  count. They are like ashes, not like wood. They once were fully human,
  fully alive, real men and women. But hell is a place not of eternal
  life but of eternal death. We do not love or weep over ashes; we only
  love or weep over the thing that existed before it was burnt. In
  Heaven, however, we will not live in the past—we will have no regrets;
  nor will we live in the future—we will have no fears; but like God, we
  will live in the eternal present. Our heavenly emotions will be
  appropriate to present reality, not past reality.

  7. If we have emotions in Heaven, why won't we be sad about those we loved who are in
  hell?

It is indeed sorrowful to know that some of our loved ones whom we fail to bring to Christ will go to Hell. However, this should motivate us to witness Christ to our loved ones and pray sincerely for them.

  Many people have wondered how those in heaven could ever be truly
  happy, especially with the knowledge that unsaved loved ones were in
  hell. We do not know the full answer, but we do know what the Bible
  says concerning God’s people: “He [God] will wipe every tear from
  their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain,
  for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

  We can be sure that with the presence of the Lord, the fellowship of
  believers, and the wonders of eternity, there will be no sorrow in
  heaven.

  We also know that God is perfectly just, and those who are in heaven
  will have every confidence that whatever has happened at the final
  judgment has been totally just and right. The terrible possibility
  that our loved ones might miss heaven should motivate us to earnestly
  pray and lovingly witness to them while there is still time in this
  life for them to experience salvation. (Billy Graham)


Why do many churches use grape juice in communion? Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ?

Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?

The Protestant practice of traditionally substituting grape juice for wine during communion must largely be credited to one man - Thomas Bramwell Welch

From Wikipedia:

  While some Christians consider the use of wine from the grape as
  essential for the validity of the sacrament, many Protestants also
  allow (or require) pasteurized grape juice as a substitute. Wine was
  used in Eucharistic rites by all Protestant groups until an
  alternative arose in the late 19th century. Methodist dentist and
  prohibitionist Thomas Bramwell Welch applied new pasteurization
  techniques to stop the natural fermentation process of grape juice.
  Some Christians who were part of the growing temperance movement
  pressed for a switch from wine to grape juice, and the substitution
  spread quickly over much of the United States, as well as to other
  countries to a lesser degree. There remains an ongoing debate between
  some American Protestant denominations as to whether wine can and
  should be used for the Eucharist or allowed as an ordinary beverage,
  with Catholics and some mainline Protestants allowing wine drinking in
  moderation, and some conservative Protestant groups opposing
  consumption of alcohol altogether. (emphasis added)

Anyone with basic knowledge of wine making knows that once grape juice is successfully squeezed and collected, it doesn't remain as juice for very long. Unpasteurized grape juice, if not consumed within a few days of harvest, will quickly ferment, rendering it not consumable (unless treated and stored to begin the wine making process).

As the excerpt from Wikipedia above states, prior to the turn of the 20th century "grape juice communion" was practically non-existent. Before the modern discovery of the pasteurization process, it would have taken a significant amount of effort to have enough freshly squeezed juice for a congregation readily available every Sunday (or less frequently depending on the denomination).

So, contrary to the traditional presuppositions held by Temperance Movement grandchildren, the theological "roots" of sipping grape juice instead of wine during communion has more to do with pasteurization and prohibition than it does biblical exegesis.


Is there a list of popes by autonomous particular church? The Roman Catholic Church consists of a couple dozen autonomous particular churches in full communion with the Holy See.  Is there a list that indicates the particular church affiliation of each of the 266 popes (so far as is known)?  Such a list would be particularly useful for answering the following questions:

How many popes has each particular church produced?
For each particular church, when was the first and last time one of their members became pope, and who were these popes?

I imagine that the Latin Church has produced the vast majority of popes, at least in recent times, but I'm very interested to know the facts and figures on popes from the Eastern Churches.

The following article contains information on autonomous particular churches, including the dates on which they restored communion with Rome. This is apart from the Maronite Church which, it is said, never left communion with Rome.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

As there has never been a Maronite Pope, and the earliest date for full communion for the others  was 1595 (Ukranian), and all Popes since then have been Latin rite,  there has never been a Pope drawn from what is now called an autonomous particular church, other than from the Latin autonomous particular church.

During the first millennium there were numerous Greek and Syrian popes. These were drawn from the Greek and Syrian churches (starting with St Peter of course), but to regard these as autonomous particular churches, long before the concept arose, would be  retrospective.  Wikipedia has an article called Popes by nationality and this is perhaps the nearest thing.

The Latin Bishop of Rome is ex officio the Pope. This was the traditional view. Arguably, in modern practice it is the other way round. Conclaves choose a Pope, who then becomes ex officio the Bishop of Rome. Between 1523 and 1978 all Popes were Italian. In choosing a Bishop for Rome, and a Primate for Italy, being Italian seems a significant factor. However there is nothing to stop a future conclave choosing someone from a different autonomous particular church as Pope.

Cardinal Agagianian of the Armenian Catholic church was rumoured to have been at one stage potentially elected at the conclave of 1963 but refused to accept. Opinion is divided as to whether he would, or someone in a similar position would, be required to adopt the Latin rite.


Why do Catholics believe in the immaculate conception? I would like to know where Catholics got the idea that Mary was born without original sin. I know it's Church dogma from early on but how did it get started, and what was the reasoning? And do Protestants universally reject this?

Was she the only human to have been born this way besides Adam and Jesus?

What was the reasoning?

There are many reasons given by the Church Fathers. Some of them are:

Mary is the new Eve. Since Jesus is the new Adam (Romans 5:12-18), Mary is the new eve foretold in Genesis 3:15. God foretold that she would be eternally at enmity with the evil serpent. So if she was touched by sin then this enmity will not be possible.
She is the mother of God. It would be better for God to save her before falling then after. (After all He is the one who commanded to honor thy father and mother)

  The great Franciscan theologian, Duns Scotus, explained ca. 600 years ago that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a massive 20-feet deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he would need someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead resulting in the man not falling into the ditch at all, he would have been saved from falling in the first place. Analogously, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.

She is seen as a type of the Ark of the Covenant. Like the Ark which was protected from impure touch (2 Samuel 6:7), Mary is considered to be protected from Original Sin. (There are other similarities between Mary and the Ark too)
She is called Full of Grace by God the Father. Here the word grace (kecharitōmenē) is perfect passive participle. This word — kecharitōmenē, means not only full of grace, but the grace was bestowed in the past to the fullest extant possible and is ongoing. This is interpreted to mean she is sinless. Because Grace cannot be full if there is sin.

And do Protestants universally reject this?

It depends on what you mean by Protestants. But most protestants do not accept it. But some protestants like Anglo-Lutherans do.

Was she the only human to have been born this way besides Adam and Jesus?

Officially (at-least according to Catholics) we know for sure that Jesus and Mary were born sinless (Adam was created sinless). But some believe St. John the baptist, even though conceived in original sin, was purified in womb during visitation, making him technically sinless when born. Some also include St. Joseph in this list. But these are not official dogmas and one may choose not to believe in them.


What denominations obligate daily Bible reading and prayer? It is my understanding that the default position within mainstream Christianity is that prayer and reading the Bible are key to promoting spiritual well-being and growth and that as such they are extremely important for growing in faith and maintaining it. However, I was wondering if any denominations obligate (by which I mean set as the rule for life in a similar fashion to prayer in mainstream Islam) daily prayer and Bible reading? Conversely are there any actively discourage daily prayer and/or daily Bible reading?

Disclaimer: I am unsure whether this answer fits your intended meaning of "mandatory" or "obligatory".

LDS members are taught they should have daily scripture study and prayer. In fact, in the handbook for missionaries, "Preach my gospel", scripture study and prayer are listed in the chapter about commandments, to be taught to potential converts before their baptism [citation needed]. This normally means they will also invite people to commit themselves to have regular scripture study and prayer.

Our leaders, who we believe to be apostles of the same authority as the ancient ones, frequently tell us the same thing. This goes so far to specifically say we should make a habit of praying in the morning when we get up and in the evening before we go to bed [citation needed].

In D&C 20:47, when talking about the duties of a priest, the priesthood holders are explicitely told to make sure the families pray both openly (family prayer) and in secret (personal prayer).

So, we definitely think of regular prayer and scripture study as divine commandments.

Of course the reason why we need to be told these things so often is that many struggle throughout their lives to make such habits. There are no measures the church takes against people who neglect these things. A big part of the personal spiritual life, however, certainly lives off these things.


Location of Jesus' tomb identified by Helena, mother of Constantine? I was reading a National Geographic article about the recent restoration work done at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Israel in which the stone slab that covered the supposed resting place of Jesus was removed. According to the article, it went on to say:

  ...it was first identified by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in A.D. 326.

I researched a bit more about Helena's visit to Jerusalem and came upon another article that had this to say about her visit:

  The site was identified in the year 326, when the Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in search of relics from the time of Christ. She asked the residents of Jerusalem where the site of Jesus’ tomb was, and they directed her to a spot where a pagan temple now stood. We might be justifiably sceptical that the people in Jerusalem at that time would have known where Jesus’ tomb once was and suspect that out of deference to the Emperor’s mother they pointed to some site.

Read more: #500 Excavating the Tomb of Jesus

Does anyone know the source for this claim? Specifically want to research more on Helena asking residents of Jerusalem where the site of the tomb was.

The entry for Helena in a 1911 Dictionary of Christian Christian Biography and Literature to the end of the sixth century [etc] includes a review of "the evidence of the ancient authorities" regarding the story of her finding the true cross. The given summaries of 15 works attributed to authors writing from 333 to 595AD incidentally include several mentions of the tomb. That selection of ancient authorities may serve as a reading list for your research.

While the authors of the Dictionary conclude that "no detailed story [of the cross] is found until nearly 70 years after the event, and then in the West only", mentions of accepted knowledge of the site of the tomb begin with the first source reviewed.

(The link refers to clean-looking OCR. The same site offers b&w page scans. If you care about pages images, archive.org has much better scans from a few different copies of the print book.)


Does God's omnipresence extend to hell? One of those attributes of God is his ability to be everywhere at all times.  I'm not debating that it is an attribute of his, I'm just wondering how we know that.

I ask, because I've been going through a question of my own recently - If God is omnipresent, how can hell exist?  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not. But, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place that he is not?

My favorite answer to that question comes from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, in which he describes hell not as a place of fire and brimstone, but rather an infinitely empty, substance-lacking smallness.  The journey from hell to heaven that his characters make is not from "down" to "up" from rather from "small" to "big" and "weak" to "strong."

I really like using that idea of hell, since it seemingly answers the idea that hell is merely a place that is, itself, so small and insubstantial that it isn't God's lack of presence, but rather its own insignificance that causes God's presence to feel so lacking.

In order to test that assertion, however, I want to make sure that I am correctly stating the postulate - namely that God really can be everywhere at all times. What is its biblical basis, and does God presence exist in hell?

In reading your question, I don't think the issue at hand is God's omnipresence at all. Frankly it's not a terribly important doctrine in the first place and while I think one could make a case for it from Scipture, I think it's a little forced. Much more importantly, the Scripture states the reverse quite plainly, that all things are in and held together by God/Christ.

  Colossians 1:16-17 (ESV)
  16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This includes hell. The problem with your question is not the doctrine of omnipresence, but the doctrine of hell. You state:

  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not.

But where does that idea come from in the Bible? The problem with hell is that God is there! It is where God pours out his eternal judgement on all things evil. This is a part of his nature and God's wrath will be a very present reality of hell for all eternity. While we can't paint an exact picture of hell, we do have have some fairly vivid and specific descriptions of the way God is involved in punishment:

  Revelation 14:9-11 (ESV)
  9  And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10  he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11  And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

What is different about it there is that it is a place separated from his grace. Neither the general grace that rains on the just and the unjust alike on this earth nor his specific graces experienced by believers will be experienced there. Folks will be separated from those aspects of God. He is only holding back his hand for a time.