Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions Trying to find an answer here leads to 2 main questions, firstly there is Blood transfusions and Christianity? (closed due to asking for the truth) and loosely there is Should we allow doctors or God to heal us? which was closed due to being non-constructive.

In a hope to ask in a format fitting this site, I would like to ask, what is the basis for Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions?

Looking at one of the answers in Blood transfusions and Christianity?, it has something to do with Acts 15:28-29 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)

  For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things
  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!

It seems that it has more involved than just Acts 15:28-29.

The following is my attempt to try and answer this question based on my findings but if anyone has more on this I am open to what they have to give.

The Jehovah's Witnesses book What Does the Bible Really Teach, it talks about Misuse of blood - Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20 & 28-29.

Later in the book it says

  After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.” However, God set this restriction: “Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature [...]

  What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.

  Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)  We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.

Jehovah's Witnesses also point out that for information on alternatives to blood transfusion, you must see the chapter entitled “Quality Alternatives to Transfusion” in the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Which Protestant denominations support the position that Peter is the rock that Jesus builds his church upon? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18

It is my understanding that there is still debate amongst Protestant scholars over the interpretation of this scripture, and that there may be partial protestant support for the Primacy of Simon Peter.

Is this true? If so, which denominations of Protestantism support the interpretation that Peter is the rock Christ is referring to?

No Protestant denominations that I know of support Peter being the rock of Mathew 16. They all tend to interpret this passage as Jesus indicating the revelation of who Jesus is being given Peter by the Father, as the 'rock' upon which the church is built.

Some Protestants (individuals) note that Peter appears to have a primary role amoung the apostles, evidenced by the number of times he is mentioned first in the gospels and Acts, and often as 'Peter and the others', etc. They also agree that Peter was a leader in the church at Jerusalem.

Some denominations note that Peter is thought to be Jasper stone in the wall of the New Jerusalem/The Israel of God/The Church, which was the first stone in the wall, listed in Rev. 21. This fulfills Jesus' words, if they were about Peter being a rock upon which He would build His church, the New Jerusalem being a type of the church, and the Israel of God,  and Peter indicated as being a foundation stone in the wall, hence therefore Peter was a 'rock' upon which Jesus 'built his church' in the prophecy of Rev. 21.

This being said and in summary, no Protestant denominations think that Peter is 'the rock' upon which Jesus said He would build His church, and few if any have written about Peter even being 'a rock' in the foundation wall of the New Jerusalem/The Bride/The Church.

This interpretation of Mathew 16, because it is a point upon which the Roman Catholic Church justify the Papacy, is stayed away from by most, if not all of Protestantism.


Is there a theological distinction between being a "sinner" and being"wicked?" Does either scripture or historical theology make a distinction between being a sinner (which all humans are) and being wicked or evil?

Is there a theological distinction between being a “sinner” and being “wicked?”

  James 5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the
  error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a
  multitude of sins.

  1Corinthians 5:13  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore
  put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

sinner = hamartōlos = one who misses the mark

wicked = ponēros = hurtful, evil, morally culpable, vicious, malicious, derelict

It looks like one could make the case that a sinner gets it wrong and someone wicked is wrong. The distinction being the extent to which the inner character has been corrupted. We should be thankful that the love of Jesus transcends even the lowest state to which we can sink.


What is the Catholic view of separation of church and state in terms of war and application of the death penalty? Note: This question was an honest search for a Catholic view not an accusation or attack. If I had written an attack it would be a 1000 times more severe and to a specific point. The defensive response in some of the comments leads me to agree that I should have specified the question more narrowly. However I had to ask my real question to get the answer I was looking for. I will now have to also vote to close the question as it seems a little to complicated for the stack exchange guidelines. Thanks to the accepted answer, and the considerable effort it takes to provide one. I know how it feels to he on the other end, and sometimes this community gives better quality answers than can be obtained elsewhere and the person making the question can be very ungrateful if it conflicts with their own faith.

I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics.  I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but, in general, Protestant churches hold separation of church and state. Where there may have been any direct official church involvement in any such action in old Lutheran or Anglican or whatever churches, Protestants in general would unanimously denounce those actions, as the church is separated from state functions. Some Protestants think it's acceptable as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war, or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protestant view.

However, I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more or less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes led military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians, even as they took the clear lead.

So it really leaves me wondering: Does the Catholic Church still think such things are OK? Is it OK that at times in history, or potentially the future, Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only?

I really mean is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill.' Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will?

I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that, but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal errors they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes, but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others. I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.

St. Thomas Aquinas's view on "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?"

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 11 a. 3 c., his answer to the question "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?," shows that although heretics deserve death, the Church must show them mercy, and if they are stubborn, apply disciplinary means like excommunication, only handing them over to the State for capital punishment as a last resort.

  With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

However, he advocates mercy; he continues:

  On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death [as a last resort]. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Answering the Asker's Questions

  I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics.

The Church during the Inquisition never executed heretics, but rather urged for their conversion, as the "Inquisition" Catholic Encyclopedia article shows. The Church simply pronounced them heretics; the State, who trusted the Church's judgment, oftentimes performed capital punishment on them because the State saw heretics as a threat to civil order.

  I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but in general Protestant churches hold separation of church and sate.

Protestants don't even believe in the visibility of the Church.

  Where there may have been any direct official church involvment in any such action in old Lutherand or Anglican or whaever churches, Protetsants in genral would unanomously denounce those actions as the church is seprated from state functions.

And yet the Protestant revolt led to much bloodshed (e.g., the 30 Years' War).

  Some Protestants think it's ok as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protetsant view.

You might be confusing separation of Church and State (which is a heresy, condemned, e.g., in Popes Gregory VI's Mirari Vos §20 and Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors §65) from the distinction between Church and State, which has always been held (cf. Pope Leo XII's encyclical "On the origin of civil power," Diuturnum*), even during the Catholic Middle Ages, when Church and State were very close.

*cf. also Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on marriage, Arcanum Divinæ §36, for a description of the distinction between Church and State, how they are two separate "spheres":Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven.

  However I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more are less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes lead military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians. Even as they took the clear lead.

Read the "Crusades" Catholic Encyclopedia article. The crusades were defensive wars.

  So it really leaves me wondering. Does the Catholic Church still think such a thing is OK? Is it OK that at times in history or potentially the future Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only?

Why does defending oneself make oneself a civil power? Just as killing in self-defense can be justified for a single Christian (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's famous Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 article where he outlines the principle of double-effect and its conditions), so can it be justified for a group of Christians.

Also, more recently, you would be interested in the Papal Zouaves of the 19th century, a multi-national army of 20,000 Catholic men who defended the Pope. See Charles Coulombe's The Pope's Legion: The Multinational Fighting Force That Defended the Vatican.

  I really mean is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill'. Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will?

According to the "Inquisition" article:

  The ecclesiastical
  ideas of the first five
  centuries may be summarized as follows:

  the Church should for no cause shed blood (St.
  Augustine, St.
  Ambrose, St. Leo
  I, and others);
  other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and
  Priscillian,
  believed that the State
  could pronounce the death
  penalty on
  heretics in case the
  public welfare demanded it;
  the majority held that the death penalty for
  heresy, when not civilly
  criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of
  Christianity.

  St. Augustine (Epistle
  100, n. 1), almost in
  the name of the western
  Church, says: "Corrigi
  eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus,
  nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri" — we wish them corrected,
  not put to death; we
  desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death
  penalties that they deserve. St. John
  Chrysostom says
  substantially the same in the name of the Eastern
  Church (Homily 46 on
  Matthew, no. 1): "To
  consign a heretic to
  death is to commit an offence beyond
  atonement"; and in the
  next chapter he says that
  God forbids their
  execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not
  forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to
  prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore
  not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the
  Christian welfare,
  general or domestic, required it,
  Christian rulers sought
  to stem the evil by
  appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of
  Seville expresses similar
  sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6).

It's clear the Church sought mercy and conversion, not revenge (only God can avenge). The Church's supreme law and mission is the salvation of souls.

  I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal erros they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others?

The Church does not oppose the death penalty justly enacted by the State, but the Church would rather heretics convert and not die unrepentant.

  I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.

The difference appears to come down to a difference in understanding what the Church is. Protestants don't believe in the visibility of the Church, which greatly affects their views of how the Church should relate to the state, whereas Catholics do believe the Church is visible.

Also, there are some good books on the Catholic Church and State doctrine:

Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation of the Church to the Civil Power vol. 1 & vol. 2 by a cardinal-archivist of the Vatican Archives, Cdl. Joseph Hergenröther
The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ by Cdl. Manning
Catholic Principles of Politics by Fr. John A Ryan


Was satan a worship leader? I've heard it claimed that Satan was the worship leader for God's choir. I cannot find any scripture in the Bible that mentions Satan was in worship in heaven and was closest to God. What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

Based on Satan was a cherubim, then yes.

GotQuestions

  Cherubim/cherubs are angelic beings involved in the worship and praise
  of God.

Who is Satan?

Satan comes from Judaism; "Satan" is from the Hebrew word for "adversary." Satan was existed in the traditions of Judaism as the heavenly prosecutor in what Christians call the Old Testament long before the incarnation of the logos aka the birth of Jesus.

Job 1:6 NIV

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and
  Satan also came with them.

Satan's origins are hinted at here:

Ezekiel 28:16 NIV

  Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you
  sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I
  expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

Power the cherubim

Isaiah 37:16 NIV

  Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you
  alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven
  and earth.

Here is a popular depiction of the order from Matthaeus (Matthäus) Merian the elder (1593-1650).

 Relationship to music

Ezekiel 28:13 hints to his relationship to music (see pipes and timbrels)

Ezekiel 28:13 KJV

  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
  covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx,
  and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and
  gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in
  thee in the day that thou wast created.


Was Jesus' death legitimate? Legitimate, not in the fact that He died, but in how specifically his blood was shed. It is said that Jesus' death was the final fulfillment of the old testament requirements. If this is true, then shouldn't the blood of Jesus, along with water, be sprinkled onto the ark of the covenant?

If Jesus' blood was not sprinkled onto the ark, how did it fulfill the very specific sacrificial requirement of God?

  Leviticus 16:15  (NKJV)

  15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the
  people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did
  with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and
  before the mercy seat.

Hebrews 10:1 (KJV)
  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

I think you can say from Hebrews 10 that the Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of Christ's sacrifice more than that his death was a fulfillment of Old Testament requirements.

Edit: Here are the verses I wanted (emphasis on verse 23):

  Hebrews 9:19-24 (KJV)
  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
  It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
  For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Married man becoming Latin Rite Catholic priest if giving up sex? This article (A Brief History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church) states:

  "In the Latin Church, one may be a married priest if one is a life-long Catholic but promises never again to have sexual relations with ones wife."

Is that statement true? A married catholic man can become priest if he promises to no longer have sex with his wife? Are there any documents saying that?

This is not what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says.

  The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

  a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

  ...

A "simple" impediment is one which applies at the time in question but is not permanent. That is, if a man later becomes unmarried (which means he is widowed, in practice), the impediment no longer applies and he can receive orders.

But while he is married, even if he separates from his wife or promises not to have conjugal relations, he is impeded from receiving orders.

It's the same in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, although that is even more restrictive, applying to putative permanent deacons as well:

  Sunt simpliciter impediti:

  Viri uxorem habentes;

  Simply impeded are:

  Men having wives;

Thus the Future Church site can't be referring to the old abrogated Code either.

Canon 1047 §2 n.3 of the 1983 Code allows the Apostolic See [viz., the Pope, or CDF on his behalf] to dispense individuals from the impediment. Each one is treated individually; there's no blanket dispensation for a class of person. This is what allows married clergy from other denominations to be reordained as priests in the Catholic Church. Since it is applied individually, to each applicable candidate on his own merits, it could be applied to "cradle Catholics", but I know of no cases.

CIC Reference — my print copy which I quote is a slightly different translation.


What is the Scriptural support for the Catholic Church's "depositum fidei"? What is the biblical basis that there is a thing which the Catholic Church terms as "depositum fidei"?

Depositum fidei, i.e the Sacred deposit of the faith that consists of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition that was mentioned in this answer and this.

The term "depositum fidei" is just another way of saying Revelation.

St. Paul charges St. Timothy to keep and preserve Revelation (1 Timothy 6:20):

  O Timothy, keep the depositum, avoiding the profane novelties of voices, and oppositions of falsely called knowledge.

The original Rheims New Testament commentary says:

  Depositum. ] The whole doctrine of our Christianity being taught by the Apostles, and delivered to their successors, and coming down from one Bishop to another, is called the Depositum, as it were a thing laid into their hands, and committed unto them to keep. Which because it passeth from hand to hand, from age to age, from Bishop to Bishop without corruption, change, or alteration, is all one with Tradition, and is the truth given unto the holy Bishops to keep, and not to laymen. See the notable discourse of Vincentius Lirensis upon this text li. cont. profan. har. Novationes. And it is for this great, old, and known treasure committed to the Bishop's custody, that St. Irenaeus calleth the Catholic Church Depositorium dives, the rich treasury of truth. li. 3 c. 4. And as Clement Alexandrinus writeth li. 2 Strom. this place maketh so much against all Heretics who do change this Depositum, that for it only such man in his days denied this Epistle. The Heretics of our days challenge also the truth, and say it is the old truth but they leap 14 or 15 hundred years from it over men's heads to the Apostles.  But we call for the Depositum, and ask them in whose hands that truth which they pretend, was laid up and how it came down to them. For it cannot be Apostolical, unless it were Depositum in some Timothy's hand, so to continue from one Bishop to another until our time to the end.

Please see also:

  Matt 28:19-20 (RSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of
  all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
  and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I
  have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the
  age.”

And

  2 Thess 2:14-16 (RSVCE) 14 To this he called you through our
  gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

  16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

And

  Gal 1:7-9 (RSVCE) 7 not that there is another gospel, but
  there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of
  Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
  to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be
  accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one
  is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let
  him be accursed.

Even the Angels and the Apostles are not to depart from the deposit of faith.


Why did God instruct the Israelites to perform so many different types of sacrificial offerings? In the Bible, there are many different sacrificial offerings (Leviticus 1-5) which were to be performed in the Tabernacle/Temple.

Burnt Offering
Sin Offering
Meat offering or Drink Offering
Trespass offering.
Peace Offering.

I know that all of the sacrifices prescribed by the Mosaic Law were all pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, but why were there so many different kinds of offerings and different steps for the priests to perform in each service?

For example, in burnt offerings, the blood was not to be taken inside the sanctuary.  Conversely, in sin offerings, the blood was to taken inside.

Is there anywhere in the Bible where it explains the meaning behind each of the sacrifices and the symbolism behind the ways in which they were to be performed? Short of Biblical evidence, are there any historical, or even modern-day explanations for these various rituals? Is there any kind of scholarly consensus about what the rituals meant, especially in the light of Christ's final sacrifice?

Short answer: Yes

Long(er) answer: Yes, there are symbols in each of them. Some of them we may not understand anymore today, some we maybe understand better than the people at the time. Note how most of the symbols are not explicitely explained. It is left to the participant to find spiritual meaning with the help of personal revelation (And so are we, for the most part).

One reason to have multiple rituals is that each represents different things. Without analyzing every ritual, which I am neither capable of, nor have the time to do, here are a few things that I see in different rituals:

Sacrifice to show God devotion, and thankfulness, to give back, etc.
Sacrifice meant to cleanse from sin, symbolizing many things, the repentance of the sinner, God's mercy, the atonement (to name a few)
Sacrifice shows that in reality, everything belongs to God (related to 1)

As you see, there are many meanings, some of which are not even meant to be understood with the intellect, but are to be felt with the heart. Some of the meanings we can decipher (and I hope a different answer will do that), but to think we "got it all" would be to diminuish the temple service in a way that keeps us from a lot of its intended meaning. It is intentional that the meaning is not explained in full depth.

(Sorry if that is not really an answer as you sought)


According to Roman Catholic doctrine, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was born without sin? In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as her Savior.  According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life.

So, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one).

  And Mary said:

  “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my
  Savior.  For He has had regard for the humble state of His
  bondslave;  for behold, from this time on all generations will count me
  blessed.  For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy
  is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward
  those who fear Him.  He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has
  scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He
  has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who
  were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away
  the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant,  In
  remembrance of His mercy,  As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and
  his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Credit to H3br3wHamm3r81 who actually found this link.

According to Catholic Answers, it was because of God's salvation that she was able to be born sinless and remain sinless.

Paraphrasing, God saved her pre-emptively, preventing (or perhaps keeping/preserving) her from sinning in the first place, something no human could do without God's protective saving power.  In other words, in Catholic doctrine, she was sinless, but only through the Grace of God.  Without the Grace of God and His keeping power, she could not have remained sinless.

Excerpt:

  The Catholic Answer

  Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church
  actually agrees that Mary was "saved." Indeed, Mary needed a savior!
  However, Mary was "saved" from sin in a most sublime manner. She was
  given the grace to be "saved" completely from sin so that she never
  committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to
  emphasize God’s "salvation" almost exclusively to the forgiveness of
  sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that
  salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before
  the fact:


What analogies have been suggested for kenosis? I was trying to represent the word "Kenosis" (Philippians 2:5-8) in a graphic way in order to understand it better. I know it sounds strange, but I imagine this concept as an almost empty hand which pours wine in another hand which is filled by the first one.
What analogies have been suggested for kenosis?

Jesus “made himself nothing” (Philippians 2:7 NIV).  When He came to earth “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT).  Jesus had to enter this world incognito, "his glory veiled". There were brief occasions when the disciples were enabled to glimpse that glory, as at his transfiguration.
He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a slave.  The kenosis was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity.  Christians who believe the incarnation, that Jesus was fully divine as well as fully human, understand this emptying took place when the Word or Logos of God agreed to give up the glory he had in heaven and condescended to “become a little lower than the angels” and took on human form.  This required humility and obedience, even to death on a cross.  Christ’s “emptying” of Himself was the laying aside of the privileges of divinity, not divinity itself.  The verb form κενόω (kenóō) means "to empty".
There are unbiblical views of kenosis, and I hesitate to draw attention to them.  However, this one provides you with a form of visualisation:

The equivalent to kenōsis in Gnostic literature is Christ's withdrawal of his own luminosity into himself, so as to cease dazzling his own disciples. At the request of his disciples, "Jesus drew to himself the glory of his light".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis#Gnosticism

Thinking about a suitable analogy, I turn to the death and resurrection of Jesus for inspiration.  In order for a seed to grow it has to be planted in the soil.  There it remains, in darkness, till the process of germination is complete. Then a new plant emerges, and reaches up to obtain energy from the sun.  The old has gone, the new arises.
The Word, or Logos, voluntarily agreed to give up the glory he had in his pre-incarnate existence, and submitted himself to death, in order to accomplish the will of his Father in heaven.  Then the resurrection takes place and Jesus arises from the tomb in a glorified body and the world is transformed because of his glorious victory over death.

In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (John 1:4).

The light and life of the world was veiled for a short while, but the veil has now been removed.  The resurrected Jesus is no longer “the suffering servant” of Isaiah, but is revealed as “the true light that gives light to every man” (John 1:9).
The following article provide some Christian insights:   https://www.gotquestions.org/kenosis.html


Has Numbers 19:11-12 been considered when discussing why Jesus rose on the third day? Has anyone ever considered Numbers 19:11-12 when discussing why Jesus resurrected on the third day and not another day?  I was reading my daily bible reading and this struck me during the reading.

Numbers 19:11-12

He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean:  but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law.  He always instructed those that he healed of leprosy to present themselves to the priests as called for in the law.  I suggest that if Jesus died then re-entered his body then he touched a dead body and would have had to have purified himself on the third day to fulfill the law.  He did instruct Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended to the Father.  Was this his way of purifying himself on the third day and not allowing Mary to be unclean if she touched him?

I was wondering about that very thing myself just the other day, and now you have referenced it for me. When Jesus came to John to be baptized, as we know, John was incredulous and said "Lord! you come to baptized by me?!"

And Jesus said "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15).

The Good News Bible says it like this, "in this way we shall do all that God requires". Many other versions saying "it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness".

Also to consider, is how His body "did not see corruption" as stated in Psalm 16:10 and quoted by both Peter, and later Paul, in the book of Acts.

Since His body did not see corruption, and doubly, being risen (but not yet ascended) His body was wholly new and only of life, therefor not 'unclean'. But God being a God of beauty through order, how logical to rise on the third day in the new glorified body, as a sort of cleansing (baptism) from the old one.


Overview of countries using the Gregorian calendar vs the Julian calendar for calculating Easter? I hope that this question is okay to ask in here.

I am looking for an overview of countries that are using the Gregorian calendar as the basis for calculating the placement of Easter and/or a list of those basing it on the Julian calendar. Since I would expect them to be mutually exclusive. I have spent quite a lot of time looking for it, but so far with no success.

Thank you in advance :)

Do any countries officially use the Julian Calendar for fixing the date of Easter?

The Ukraine (at the moment of answering this question) uses the Gregorian Calendar for its' international affairs. However, it officially celebrates Easter according to the Julian Calendar. How long this will last is anyones guess. The same is true for its' celebration of Christmas.

  Ukrainian MPs drafted a law that proposes to celebrate Christmas in Ukraine as a national holiday both 25 December (Gregorian calendar) and 7 January (Julian calendar). They believe that their initiative will not only take into account the religious need of many Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians, but also will unite the Ukrainian society.

  The draft proposes to amend Article 73 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, adding 25 December (Christmas) to the list of holidays. Seventh of January is already in the list. This means that Ukrainian will celebrate Christmas and 25 December and 7 January.

  MPs argue that according to statistics from the Ministry of Culture, in addition to about 23,172 Orthodox, Greek Catholic and some other Christian communities that celebrate Christmas on January 7 (according to the Julian calendar), today in Ukraine there are about 11,000 Catholic and Protestant communities (about 30 % of all religious organizations in Ukraine) that celebrate Christmas on December 25 (according to the Gregorian calendar). - Christmas According to Gregorian Calendar may become a national Feast in Ukraine

Traditionally, the Byzantine Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches use the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days, including Easter. The Orthodox Easter is a legal holiday in the Ukraine.

Counties that that celebrate the Orthodox Easter as a holiday are as follows:

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Georgia
Greece
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Romania
Serbia
Ukraine

The Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrea Orthodox Churches use the Alexandrian Calendar for their liturgy.

  The Coptic calendar, also called the Alexandrian calendar, is a liturgical calendar used by the Coptic Orthodox Church and still used in Egypt. This calendar is based on the ancient Egyptian calendar. To avoid the calendar creep of the latter, a reform of the ancient Egyptian calendar was introduced at the time of Ptolemy III (Decree of Canopus, in 238 BC) which consisted of the intercalation of a sixth epagomenal day every fourth year. However, this reform was opposed by the Egyptian priests, and the idea was not adopted until 25 BC, when the Roman Emperor Augustus formally reformed the calendar of Egypt, keeping it forever synchronized with the newly introduced Julian calendar. To distinguish it from the Ancient Egyptian calendar, which remained in use by some astronomers until medieval times, this reformed calendar is known as the Coptic calendar. Its years and months coincide with those of the Ethiopian calendar but have different numbers and names. - Coptic calendar (Wikipedia)

The Coptic Liturgical Calendar celebrates Christmas and Easter on the same dates as the rest of the Orthodox Churches and countries using the Julian Calendar for religious reasons.


What is the "abomination of desolation"? "'Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)'"  (Matthew 24:15, NASB)

I don't understand.

I'm just curious if anyone actually understands this?  Is this the Antichrist, or Jesus, or the Jews, or Rome...?  Is this a prophecy that will only be understood once it happens?  Make your case.  (See Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11.)

Christians of many persuasions recognize this text as a definite and peculiar sign concerning the last days. Yet even though the majority of them can agree that the abomination of desolation is an important sign, they can't seem to agree on its specific nature. Even preachers are thrown into a quagmire of confusion - looking for something that no one is very sure about. It is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.
Of course, some believe they know the identity of the abomination of desolation. Some teach that this prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes interrupted the temple sacrifices between 168 and 165 B.C. The abomination they point to is the pig Antiochus had offered on the altar in the temple complex. Others believe the abomination of desolation refers to a future time when an atheistic anti-christ will overthrow the temple in Jerusalem and use it as his throne. Then there are those who believe the abomination of desolation is the Roman standards which were worshiped in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the time of its destruction by Titus.
Just what exactly is the abomination of desolation? Is it any one of these alternatives? Is it all of them at the same time? Or could it be possible that not any of these interpretations are correct? The answer to these questions is vitally important. Jesus clearly implies that our very lives could be at stake over this matter.
Jesus tells us that our study of the abomination of desolation should focus on the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). When one makes a careful study of this book, he discovers that the abomination of desolation can be divided into three parts. These parts are: the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day (involving the first temple); the abomination of desolation in Jesus' day (involving the second temple); and finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end (involving the whole Christian church). The issues that come into play in the abomination of desolation as treated in the book of Daniel remain consistent in each of its three phases. Therefore they are types, or examples, of each other.
The First Abomination
The key that unlocks the mystery of this prophetic event is found in the first two verses of Daniel.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and beseiged it. And
the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the
vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure
house of his god (Daniel 1:1,2).

In these two short sentences Daniel provides a concise historical background to the remainder of the book which follows.
Further study of Daniel's prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem's captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon.

"Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and
he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God."

It was because of Jehoiakim's iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.
The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim's evil deeds are described this way:

"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he
did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the
book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned
in his stead" (2 Chronicles 36:5-8).

It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God's protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.
Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, didn't do much better. Scripture tells us he also did "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and "Zedekiah his brother" was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9-11).
The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but "moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen" (v. 12-14). God's political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God's revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people "transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem" (v. 14). These abominations were standing in God's consecrated holy place, the "house of the Lord." The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God's commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God's heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God's calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. "Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary" (v. 17).
This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 19). This all was done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years" (v. 21). The result of God's people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary.
Breaking The Sabbath Brought Desolation
Just what were these abominations that resulted in such desolation? Since this was all done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah," then Jeremiah should be able to tell us what substitutions in worship had been made. In Jeremiah 17 the prophet is told to stand in the gate of the people and prophesy. Under a divine mandate, Jeremiah told the people that if they would honor God's seventh-day Sabbath their city would remain forever, and that this faithful obedience would lead them into such a relationship with Himself that they would be used to convert the surrounding heathen nations (ch. 17:19-26).
On the other hand, if they would not keep the Sabbath day holy God would allow their city to be desolated. "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (v. 27).
Sadly, the Jews chose to continue breaking God's Sabbath and thus inaugurated their own destruction and captivity. The abomination that led to their desolation was breaking the Sabbath. Thus, we see the significance of 2 Chronicles 36:21:

"To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the
land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she
kept Sabbath."

Ezekiel, who lived during the same time, also tells us about the abominations God's people were practicing in the holy place. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet was brought by vision to the door of the inner gate. God proceeded to show his servant the progressively greater outrages His people were committing. In verses 5 and 6 He speaks of an image that provoked Him to jealousy. In an escalation of outrage, unclean beasts had been brought into the house of God, women were weeping for Tammuz and the greatest abomination of all was twenty-five men standing in God's holy place "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" (Ezekiel 8:16).
God had instructed the Jews to erect the temple in a manner that would discourage the imitation of their heathen neighbors in sun worship. The ark of the covenant, the very focal point of the Jews' worship, was placed at the western end of the tabernacle. Thus the children of Israel would face the west, their backs to the rising sun, when they worshipped the true God. Yet the entrance of paganism among God's people had grown to such proportions that Judah's leading men were actually turning their backs on the temple of God. This was a significant act of apostasy.
Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah list the heathen practices that had been incorporated into the worship of God. Whether it was breaking the second commandment by idol worship, adoring unclean beasts, worshipping Tammuz, the mythological god of the pagans, or breaking God's holy Sabbath and worshiping the sun on the day consecrated to it, these practices all were classed by God as abominations. It was because the Jews persisted in justifying their own course and continued in these heathen customs that God permitted the desolation of their city.
Daniel himself agrees that it was the sins committed by God's people that caused their desolation.

"O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine
anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy
mountain: because for our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers....
cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.... open
thy eyes, and behold our desolations..." (Daniel 9:16-18).

It is important to note that the abominations were done by the apostate people of God. This in turn resulted in their forfeiture of God's protection and called down His judgments and chastisement in their desolation. This scenario of the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day, involving the first Jewish temple period, prefigures the two other abominations of desolation prophesied in Daniel. The next one we shall consider is the one that concerns the second Jewish temple period.
The Second Temple Desolated
After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.
Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.
Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day.

"Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold
the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none
effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13).

Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.
Even though their apostasy expressed itself in legalism instead of laxness, it was still based on the same principle upon which all pagan religions are based - that man can save himself by his own works. Jesus, like Jeremiah of old, rebuked this religious system and called it an abomination.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your
hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in
the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).

Jesus expressed His displeasure for their abominations on numerous occasions. Most notable were the two times He cleansed the temple. On these times He expressed His anger at the desecration of His holy place. The controversy between Jesus and the Jews steamed, boiled and spewed over religion. The religious leaders hated Him because He didn't look like the Messiah, He didn't respect their traditions and most notably He didn't keep the Sabbath in the manner they thought it should be kept. This latter issue infuriated the Jews and led them to seek Jesus' death (See John 5:10-16; Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 3:1-6).
In spite of the religious leaders' resistance, Jesus sought time and again to bring them to repentance and reformation. Often He reproved them for their erroneous ways and pointed the way to true and undefiled religion that is of great price in the sight of God. Yet they hardened their hearts and beat back the waves of God's mercy.
As Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time, His prophetic eye saw the consequences of their constant rebellion. With a grief-stricken heart and tears coursing down His cheeks, He prophesied the coming doom of the city:

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a
trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every
side and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because
thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19:41-44).

After teaching in the temple for several days, Jesus left its precincts for the last time. Again He was choked with anguish as He saw the ultimate result of His people's apostasy. He exclaimed,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate"
(Matthew 23:37,38).

On both these occasions Jesus placed the guilt upon the people by stating, "they knew not the time of their visitation" and "ye would not." As a result of not responding to God's call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of God and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a heathen army.
This desolation of Jerusalem was prophesied by Daniel to come as a result of the people rejecting Messiah the prince. A careful study of Daniel 9:25-27 will show this to be the case. In verse 25 Messiah is promised to Israel and the city's restoration is also predicted. But then, ominously, all is prophesied for doom again. Verse 26 speaks of Messiah being killed by His own people and of how this act would cause their city and sanctuary to be desolated once again.
As Daniel heard Gabriel relay this prophecy, it was to his mind a replay of what he had seen happen to the Jerusalem of his day. The prophecy indicated that history would repeat itself, and this is exactly what happened. The abominations that God's people committed resulted, in both 586 B.C. and 70 A.D., in the destruction of their sanctuary and city -- first by Nebuchadnezzar, then by Titus.
Because Israel rejected the Messiah they lost their place as God's favored people. Jesus predicted this would take place by saying, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). Israel forfeited their franchise of the gospel by their own obstinate sin.
Who would be the new nation to receive the kingdom of God and bring forth the fruits thereof? The Bible provides a clear and concise answer in the apostle Peter's letter to the Gentile converts who "In time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Of the converts to Christianity, the new people of God, he further says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9,10).
In the new dispensation God bestows upon the converted Christians all the privileges and promises that had been made to the literal seed of Abraham (see Galatians 3:26-29). Now converted Christians assume the role of Israel, and the Christian church absorbs the status of the temple or sanctuary of God. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear in such texts as Romans 2;28,29; Ephesians 2:11-13; 19-22; and 1 Peter 2:5.
The Final Desolation
It is in the light of this New Testament principle of spiritual Israel that Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation the third and final time. These references can be found in Daniel 8:13; 11:31; and 12:11. Discerning students of prophetic history realize that these verses predict the formation and ascension of power by the Papacy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Papacy brought into the Christian church the very same practices of paganism for which ancient Jerusalem was destroyed. One has to do only a little study to see how image worship, Tammuz worship, and sun worship were introduced to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Many of these abominations are still with us in the form of statues, candles for the saints, rosary beads, Easter sunrise services and Sunday worship. [For more information on this subject, see Amazing Facts' booklet Baptized Paganism.]
By no means does the papal apostasy exonerate Protestantism. Most Protestant churches accede to the apostasy by continuing the practice of abominations that have their roots firmly fixed in ancient pagan religions, which were established to destroy God's truth. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have fostered abominations in God's holy place, His church. The Christian church is mirroring literal Israel. We are repeating many of the same sins and will consequently reap the same punishment of desolation, unless we are willing to read the handwriting on the wall and flee from Babylon.
It is clear that the three occasions of abomination of desolation found in Daniel result from apostasy on the part of God's people, but what is the sign that will tell us when the desolation is nigh?
In Luke 21:20 Jesus told His disciples what would be the last sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. He said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." This text does not indicate that the armies are the abomination, but rather that the armies were the instrument to cause desolation. Through the Roman armies God would execute "the days of vengeance" for Israel's abominations.
When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, it was a sign that most of the city's leaders and inhabitants had passed the boundaries of grace and had filled their cup of iniquity. To the Christians living in the city, this was to be a sign that Jerusalem would soon suffer God's judgment. As soon as the first opportunity arose, these Christians were to "flee to the mountains" (v. 21). In 66 A.D. when Cestius, the Roman general, surrounded the city the Christians knew the promised sign had arrived and the time had come to flee. At their first opportunity to escape they did so, and not one Christian died in the horrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Just as God gave the early Christians a sign of when to flee Jerusalem, so He has given us a sign. He has made it possible for every Christian to know when this world's probationary hour is nearing its close.
In Revelation 13 and 14 John records a list of omens that will tell us just how close we are to the end. The sign that will show this nation has filled its cup of iniquity will be when it makes an image to the Papacy by uniting church and state. How much more neatly could this be effected than by the passage of a national Sunday law commanding everyone to honor a pagan day of worship? Such an event will be a direct fulfillment of Revelation 13:15-17, and provide assurance that the end of this earth's time is quickly approaching.
One author describes coming events this way: "As the approach of Roman armies was a sign to the disciples of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy be a sign to us that the limit of God's forbearance is reached, that the measure of our nation's iniquity is full, and that the angel of mercy is about to take her flight." When the churches have apostasized in their abominations to such a degree that they enact legislation of a religious law which displaces God's holy Sabbath with a pagan holiday, we may leave our cities, knowing that a time of trouble will be forthcoming.
The abomination of desolation is an important subject in these last days. If we study this prophecy carefully, we will find that in each of its three fulfillments refers to a national apostasy by God's people that ends in their tragic destruction. We are now living in the time of the Christian church's final apostasy, which makes of none effect the commandments of God. We need to see that we are in the midst of fulfilling prophecy and keep our eyes open for the culmination of all things.
Our only sure protection against the abomination of desolation is to give our lives unreservedly to Jesus, loving others as He loves them and worshiping Him in the way that His word teaches. The greatest commandment is simply to love God with all our heart and soul and strength. If we have such love, it will be natural for us to do all things to please and honor Him. In return, He will see us safely through the desolation that will close this earth's history just before He comes again.


What miracles were performed during the beatification and canonization processes of Mother Teresa? Mother Teresa was recently recognized as a Saint. The process of canonization (becoming a saint) involves the performing of a miracle. From Wikipedia:

  If the Venerable was not a martyr—all non-martyrs are "confessors" as they "confessed" or bore witness to their faith by how they lived their lives—it must be proven that a miracle has taken place by his or her intercession: that is, that God has shown a sign that the person is enjoying the Beatific Vision by God performing a miracle in response to the Blessed's prayers.

The first such miracle results in the person's beatification, recognized with the title "Blessed". The second such miracle results in the person's canonization, recognized with the title "Saint".

What were the miracles that were performed during the beatification and canonization processes of Mother Teresa?

The first miracle, required for beatification, occurred in 1998 when a cancerous tumour was removed from the abdomen of an Indian woman named Monica Bersa, after a beam of light had emanated from a picture of Mother Teresa contained in a locket. This was recognised by the Church as a miracle in 2002. However the woman's husband disputes whether her cure really was a miracle. He says, "It is much ado about nothing. My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle." However, Mrs Bersa asserts that her cure was miraculous and has sought financial help from the Sisters of Charity, accused the nuns of abandoning her to a life of penury.

The second miracle accepted by the Church, leading  to canonisation as a saint, was the healing in 2008 of a Brazilian man with multiple brain tumours.


Why does the Roman Catholic church consider beatification of the pope? If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beatifying and canonising him have?  They did both to John Paul II, but it seems odd that the church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.

First, Catholic teaching is not that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, but rather infallible only when specifically exercising the authority of his office to pronounce doctrine.

Second, a Saint in the sense meant by the Catholic church is one whose life, witness and actions have been examined in depth and at length by church leadership and has been found to be significantly exemplary of the Christian ideal.  They are recognized by the Catholic church as examples to emulate, and are made "official", so to speak, so that there is no confusion among believers as to what constitutes a great example.

Also, as Patrick pointed out in the comments, other conditions and prerequisites apply; among them is the requirement that at least two miracles be directly attributable to the individual under consideration.

Therefore, a Pope is not automatically a Saint (with a capital 'S' since all believers are saints in the general sense); in fact, historically, many of them were decidedly unchristian in their actions and some downright wicked.  Some very reputable Catholics have said that the preservation of the doctrine of the Catholic church in spite of some of her Popes is remarkable, if not nothing short of miraculous.


Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic? Like most of the planet, I've been taking in gobs of information about Covid-19 and vaccinations. The latest news I read was that even the horribly abortion tainted Johnson and Johnson vaccine is permissible to take as long as there are no alternatives and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are somehow examples of the means justifying the ends because of their remoteness.
So that first paragraph notwithstanding (I mean completely discounting abortion from this answer which has short circuited what I think is a more important and more imperative thing for the average Catholic to deal with), do we as Catholics need to "Trust Dr. Fauci"?  Like the President implores us to?  Or should we trust our consciences.
Our parish priest said that if we choose to not get the vaccine we should protect society in other ways, but can that mean telling our neighbors to chill out, take off their masks and stop worrying so much about Covid-19; trusting God, if not the odds over the science? Or does it mean that we still need to believe everything else that the authorities tell us about Covid-19 and more-or-less become hermits just so we can avoid taking a vaccine?

Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic?
The answer seems to be in the negative. But based on the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) guidelines, but the faithful are also bound by government rules and guidelines. The vaccines are a separate matter. Why? The CDF guidelines have a provision for Catholics to not accept the vaccines on personal moral grounds. But, Pope Francis in order to explain that the new vaccines are morally licit and will serve the common good.
Since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that the coronavirus is air born, it would reasonably prudent to take the normal safety measures health officials are mandating: wearing masks and staying 6 ft apart from others and avoid large crowds.
At least Pope Francis is in favour of following governmental health guidelines!

Pope Francis criticized groups protesting coronavirus restrictions and praised medical workers in an op-ed published Thursday in The New York Times.
“With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives,” the pontiff wrote Thursday. “Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions -- as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
Francis, 83, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina, wrote that his own personal health crisis helped him to understand how science can be used to help people recover. The pope said he was 21 in 1957 when he had part of his lung removed, The Hill reported. - Pope Francis criticizes groups protesting COVID-19 restrictions

Maybe not obliged, but Catholics must make an informed decision on this matter. That much is clear.
To say the least, it is complicated!
Catholics should strive to take the vaccine the least morally offensive possible, if possible.
The Vatican’s Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines states the following:

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.
Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility” of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent - in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses. Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty. - (17 Dec 2020)

On March 2, 2021 Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement on the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine recently approved for use in the United States.

The approval of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in the United States again raises questions about the moral permissibility of using vaccines developed, tested, and/or produced with the help of abortion-derived cell lines.
Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines raised concerns because an abortion-derived cell line was used for testing them, but not in their production.  The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, however, was developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines raising additional moral concerns. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that ‘when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available … it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.’ However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson’s.
While we should continue to insist that pharmaceutical companies stop using abortion-derived cell lines, given the world-wide suffering that this pandemic is causing, we affirm again that being vaccinated can be an act of charity that serves the common good. - U.S. Bishop Chairmen for Doctrine and for Pro-Life Address the Use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine

There still remains a fair bit of confusion on the data and scientific evidence in regards to vaccines at the present. In order to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic, we as Catholics have the right to understand what the scientific evidence truly is.

Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not morally compromised and even the Vatican knows it
By tainting the COVID-19 vaccine with its taboo morality, the bishops are not respecting life, they are instead exploiting a grave situation to inject their anti-abortion politics.
Though the Archdiocese of Philadelphia did not make any additional comments about the bishops’ pronouncement, they did share the statement with educators in all Catholic schools in the five-county Philadelphia region, spokesperson Kenneth A. Gavin told The Inquirer’s Marie McCullough in an email.
The truth is, all currently approved vaccines for COVID-19 used cell lines derived from aborted fetuses in their testing phases. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, some antiabortion activists claim, is morally compromised because it also used these cells in its production. The pharmaceutical company has stated unequivocally that there are no fetal cells in its vaccine.

All vaccine companies must give the scientific evidence of research and how the vaccines are actually made, in order that as Catholics, we can follow what the scientific community is claiming.
The Church has not pronounced on the mRNA vaccines as of yet, so Catholics must ultimately make the best informed decision possible, including talking it over with your local bishop.
The following articles may be of interest here:

Coronavirus: CDC acknowledges airborne transmission of COVID-19
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public
Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab?


What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace? In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Grace refers to an overarching theological covenant which God made on the basis of grace. The various Biblical covenants such as Abraham's, the Mosaic/Deuteronomic, and David's are considered to be expressions, administrations, or even (ironically) dispensations of the single original Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is timeless, an eternal agreement that God will graciously save his people, on the basis of which God made other specific covenants like Abraham's etc.

Who first developed this concept of the Covenant of Grace?
Were the other two metacovenants of Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Redemption and Works, developed at the same time?
Are there any substantial differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised compared to how it is understood now?

Who first developed this concept of a covenant of grace?

Much like the doctrine of the trinity, to proponents of the doctrine, the answer is, "It comes from the Bible." But obviously the actual historical development and refinement of definitions is less straight-forward than that. But do keep in mind that to those explicating covenant theology, all they're doing is teaching what's in Scripture.

It's hard to pin down exactly who was first. Heinrich Bullinger, Huldrych Zwingli, and Johannes Oecolampadius all wrote letters and delivered sermons in the 1520s about the covenant of grace. They are difficult to date with precision. In the case of Oecolampadius, he was teaching the covenant of grace as an "outworking" of the covenant of redemption (though he does not explicitly name it) in 1521.

Reformed theologians contend that Martin Luther's law/gospel distinction, first developed around 1525, is just another way of speaking of the covenant of works and covenant of grace.

From what I can tell, the two most commonly cited as the originator of the covenant of grace are Bullinger and Oecolampadius. In my non-scholarly opinion, I'd give the edge to Oecolampadius.

Were the other two metacovenants developed at the same time?

Roughly. The ideas are implicitly there (even as early as 1521, as I mentioned above). The covenant of grace assumes a covenant of works (or else, what is there to be gracious about) and also a covenant of redemption (or else God was blindsided by humanity's fallenness and made the decision to intervene temporally rather than eternally). But it took some decades before all three ideas were talked about simultaneously, as part of a "package deal." The order seems to be that first the reformers were eager to talk about grace (often "using the covenant of grace as a summary of biblical theology"), then started discussing the covenant of works as a "creation covenant," then developed the doctrine of the covenant of redemption to round it out.

Zacharius Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, is credited as one of the originators of the idea of the covenant of works in the 1560s. Johannes Cocceius is credited as an originator of the covenant of redemption around the same time. Coeccius, Ursinus, and Herman Witsius wrote systematic theologies in the latter half of the 17th century organized around the three covenants.

Are there differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised and how it is understood now?

No substantial differences I'm aware of. Though I haven't read the primary sources pre-1700, I've never read any indications that it underwent significant changes through the years.

Sources

I consulted these works to write this post:

Covenant theology - Wikipedia article
A Brief History of Covenant Theology - a 2001 Westminster Seminary at California lecture by R. Scott Clark
The History of Covenant Theology - a 2006 Table Talk magazine article by R. Scott Clark and an abridgement of the lecture above (don't be fooled by the titles, this is the brief one)
Henry Bullinger and the Covenant of Grace - a 2005 article by George M. Ella, published by Martin Bucer Seminary


Why was the first man called Adam? I have started reading the Bible and I have found that in Genesis 2.19 the first man is already called Adam without any previous reference to this name.

But when it comes to Eve there is a clear explanation of her name in Genesis 3.20.

So my question is, how was Adam's name chosen? Was it chosen by himself or given to him by God? And why?

In case different traditions have different answer to this question I would prefer the Roman Catholic one.

'Āḏām comes from the Hebrew 'āḏām, meaning "human being, mankind collectively, cognate with Phoenician 'dm (probably adam), Arabic 'adam human being; further etymology uncertain: perhaps related to 'aḏamāh earth, ground (compare the juxtaposition of 'āḏām and 'aḏamāh in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man out of earth) or to 'aḏom red, ruddy" (OED).


How do Christians discern whether they are on the narrow path that leads to life or the broad path that leads to destruction? Matthew 7:13-14 (ESV):

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

How do Christians discern if they are part of the privileged minority walking the narrow path to life? Are there recommended and well-tested practices in Christianity for making that assessment, or is this a subject matter which is inherently subjective and, therefore, devoid of any objective and reliable way of discerning?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. - John 10:1-9

Jesus is the "strait" gate.  Jesus is the "narrow" way.

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:5-6

To pass through into life one must divest themselves of all pretense regarding sin, righteousness, and judgement.  One must utterly reject the pride of life which claims to somehow either deserve or renders unessential both mercy and grace.  There is but one single, solitary way for any and every person to enter into life and that is through Jesus.  He is the door.  He is the way.
The only thing that will fit through this door is the uncovered man, wretched in his sin and utterly naked and excuse-less before the eyes of the Righteous One.  What else can a man bring to God but a begging hand outstretched and imploring?  Oh sinner, call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved!
Having thus come, desperate and helpless to be cured of sin, the gracious savior does not turn away or quench the bruised reed, the smoldering wick.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. - John 6:37

In Christ transgression is covered.  In Him the power of sin in the flesh is broken, not removed yet but broken, and no longer reigning as master.  The Holy Spirit of God takes up residence in the newly cleansed tabernacle of the body and begins to conform the newly redeemed to the image of Christ.  This activity of God will be carried out unto completion (Philippians 1:6). In Christ one is born again...born from above and they have eternal life.

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. - John 5:21-24

That which was beforehand dead is now made alive.  The question asks, "How do Christians discern if they are part of the privileged minority walking the narrow path to life?"  This is tantamount to asking, "How does that which was previously dead know that it is now made alive?"
The purpose statement of John's gospel is that one may believe and, in believing, may have life in Jesus' name:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. - John 20:30-31

The purpose statement of the epistle of 1 John is that those who have believed may know that they have eternal life:

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:11-13

If one has the Son of God (only begotten and equal as in John 5:18) one has eternal life and, according to 1 John, is capable of and expected to know it.  It is apparently possible for one who has life to be yet unsure (or else why the stated purpose of 1 John). If one does not know that they have eternal life it is perhaps because they have not been well taught all that there is in Christ.  1 John is recommended reading for such.
As the Scripture says, however, there are many who do not have the Son of God and who, therefore do not have life.  They have approached a misrepresentation of, a misunderstanding of the Son of God and have apprehended a savior who cannot save.  They have yet to come to the gatekeeper, to the door of the sheep. It is entirely impossible for one who does not have the Son of God and, therefore, does not have life to know life as in 1 John.  They have yet to enter the strait gate...they are on the broad path of the dead who think that they live and the only hope for such is to lift up their eyes, see the Son of God lifted up, and believe.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - John 3:12-18

One may know that they are on the narrow path when one believes in the name of the only Son of God.  This One who is begotten of God and who is one in being with the Father is the One who saves and is the One who sends the Holy Spirit to live within the believer.  It is this indwelling Spirit that wrestles within us against the sinful desires of the flesh and bringing about conformity to Christ, thus testifying within us that we belong to God:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God - Romans 8:14-16

Anyone who does not believe in, trust, and confess this Jesus as the only begotten Son of God cannot possibly have the internal testimony of the Spirit and so cannot possibly know that they have eternal life and will never be condemned.  It is possible to be on the broad way and yet think the narrow is underfoot.  The defining question is "Which Jesus do you confess?"


What is the purpose of the Tree of Life according to YEC? According to Young-Earth creationism, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life?  Genesis 3:22 says that it would make whomever were to eat from the tree immortal. But according to Young-Earth theology, all creatures, Adam and Eve included, were already immortal prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  And as soon as they did so, God banished them from the garden, at least in part, to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life.

So why create this tree in the first place? What is its purpose?

Genesis 2:9 first notes the presence of the Tree of Life in the center of the garden of Eden:

  The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)

Genesis 2:16-17 states:

  Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.

Presumably, every tree in the garden included the Tree of Life, since Adam and Eve were only forbidden from consuming fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Genesis 3:22-24, God states:

  And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

What becomes clear then, is that by eating of the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve are like God - they have everlasting life. By forbidding Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, God is instituting the promised consequence ("You shall surely die") and if God continued to allow them to eat from the Tree, Adam and Eve would not die, but instead would live forever and have eternal Life.

According to Romans 6:23:

  For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 22:1-3 makes it clear that after the rapture, we will be able to partake of this tree again:

  "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life—water as clear as crystal—pouring out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, flowing down the middle of the city’s main street. On each side of the river is the tree of life producing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month of the year. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads."

From this passage we see that the Tree of Life produces 12 kinds of fruit (for the 12 tribes of Israel with which God made the Covenant*), that the Tree of Life's leaves are for the healing of the nations (of Israel), And there will no longer be any curse (The curse of Genesis - that by eating of the Fruit, Adam and Eve would not have eternal/everlasting life).

As Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Galatians, all believers are members of the nation of Israel to which the Covenant to give Abram's descendants the promised land was made. Galatians 3:29 states,

  If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And the promise of the promised land, was not just the promise of the land that is now Israel, but really a promise to give back the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life contained therein vis-a-vis, the sacrifice of the Messiah (Jesus Christ). In God's promise to Abraham, you will note in Genesis 15:18 it says:

  That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River

This is the same land in which the Garden of Eden is located according to Genesis 2:10:

  Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there). The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

And just as Eden is described as a paradise, the Promised Land is said to be "Flowing with Milk and Honey" which is the probable origin for the belief that the Promised Land included the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion

According to Young Earth Creationism, the Tree of Life provides the everlasting or eternal life that was present in the Garden of Eden and was promised to us in Romans 6:23 ("the gift of God is eternal life") and at the end of time.