How do Christians reconcile Isaiah 42:4 with the death of Jesus? My understanding of Isaiah 42:4 is that it states that the Messiah will not falter before his job is completed. How do Christians reconcile this with the fact that Jesus died?

He will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.  Isaiah 42:4 NIV
“He will not be disheartened or crushed until He has established justice in the earth;  And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law.”  Isaiah 42:4 NASB

This is easily reconciled because here is nothing to reconcile! Christ has never faltered, been disheartened, or crushed. He fulfilled His mission while here on earth, continues to do so as our advocate, and will continue to do so. His death and resurrection demonstrated this, rather than negating it!

A look at Christian commentaries shows that this is the common understanding among Christians.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  Isaiah  42:1-4 This prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, Mt 12:17. Let
  our souls rely on him, and rejoice in him; then, for his sake, the
  Father will be well-pleased with us. The Holy Spirit not only came,
  but rested upon him, and without measure. He patiently bore the
  contradiction of sinners. His kingdom is spiritual; he was not to
  appear with earthly honours. He is tender of those oppressed with
  doubts and fears, as a bruised reed; those who are as smoking flax, as
  the wick of a lamp newly lighted, which is ready to go out again. He
  will not despise them, nor lay upon them more work or more suffering
  than they can bear. By a long course of miracles and his resurrection,
  he fully showed the truth of his holy religion. By the power of his
  gospel and grace he fixes principles in the minds of men, which tend
  to make them wise and just. The most distant nations wait for his law,
  wait for his gospel, and shall welcome it. If we would make our
  calling and election sure, and have the Father delight over us for
  good, we must behold, hear, believe in, and obey Christ.

Even in His darkest hour, as He prepared to fulfill His mission on the cross, He never faltered.  He did the will of the Father, putting aside His own needs without hesitation.

  Matthew 26:39  (KJV)

  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed,
  saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
  nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

In my book. that's not faltering.  were it me, I'd have faltered. I'd have run away, lied, done anything to escape, yet He never faltered.  He went ahead, knowing what was to come, because He cannot falter.

Extra credit: Here's a list of sermons that preach on that verse, many of which focus on Christ as the triumphant servant.

Edits to address points missed per the comments below.  Namely, this comment:

  Maybe you know more than me and can show that there has been justice
  on this earth for the past 2000 years.

This was addressed in the very first paragraph on this answer, but I will expand upon it.  Repeating the relevant sentence, with some emphasis added:

He fulfilled His mission while here on earth, continues to do so as our advocate, and will continue to do so.

The misunderstanding here of commonly accepted Christian doctrine, is that in asking whether there has been justice on this earth in the last 2000 years is that His work was done on the cross.  That is not the case.  Christianity isn't based on His death, it's based on His resurrection, and the work that He continues to do.  He has still not, to this very second, faltered. He is still doing the will of his father.

The idea that the verse is nullified because perfect justice wasn't established on this earth by the time of His death ignores the very basic tenets of the Christian faith.  For there to be a discrepancy, His would would have had to end with His death.  It didn't.

Rather than going deep into detail on all of the doctrinal points that this question ignores, I'll simply summarize them with links for further study.

Christ was resurrected.  So His work didn't end at the cross.
He then spent a little more time on this earth after his resurrection, and then ascended to heaven.

Lest you wonder about the three days between His death and resurrection and somehow try to interpret that as a "pause", we know little of what He was doing during those three days, but we do know that He was active, "preaching to the spirits in prison".  (Although the exact details on what that means aren't clear.)

Christ continues, right now, even as I type this, to work as our Advocate.  (still hasn't stumbled.)

So, up until the present time, at no point has Christ stumbled, wavered, or strayed from his path.  We have no evidence whatsoever that he was discouraged, even in His darkest hour, or since.  Thus, the fact that perfect justice hasn't been established yet is not a problem.

Scripture does promise that He will establish new Heaven and a new Earth.  This is the point at which perfect justice will be established on earth, but that is a promise for the future.

Only if he stumbles before that future promise comes to pass could there possibly be any potential discrepancy here.


What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2? What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2?

  1 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)

  2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I figure baptism ought to be one of them. Is he also referring to Eucharist/Communion/Sacrament? Eating bread and drinking is mentioned later in the chapter.

It's hard to say for certain exactly what Paul was referring to.  All he said was, "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."  What ordinances?  The ones he delivered, of course.  The people he was writing to already know what he was talking about, because they're the ones he delivered them to, so he doesn't need to explain it.

It's a well-understood convention that writers tend to interrupt the main body of whatever they're writing in order to explain things that the audience would not be familiar with, but of course they don't usually bother when covering familiar subject matter.  Unfortunately, we're not the Corinthians.


Is "Rapture" or "Caught up alive" in contradiction to God's words "Dust to dust"? By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to
  the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust
  you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

  Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face
  judgment. (Hebrews 9:27, NIV)

From these verses, we can deduce that "All must die once (or at least once) and return to dust".

  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
  with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
  the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still
  alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds
  to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
  (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

  Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all
  be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe
  itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1
  Corinthians 15:51-53, NIV)

These verses are very important basis for Christian eschatology belief called Rapture. As per these verses, on the the day of Rapture, first, the dead who belonged to Christ will be resurrected and they will be transformed, second, those who are alive and believe in Christ will be caught up, who may or may not be transformed.

What I cannot understand is that if all are destined to die, then it is a contradiction that believers will be caught up alive, without ever facing death. Though Enoch and Elijah were taken alive, some believe that they are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11, who will be killed by the Beast, thus still fulfilling the words of God that all must die.

Is there any possibility (apart from the scripture about Rapture), that some people will never face death?

Does God's word "Dust to dust" leave any exception?

How do theologians explain this contradiction?

The following statement is directed specifically to Adam as only Adam technically came from dust!  We of course as the offspring of Adam are affected relationally.  However, this statement would not be substantial enough to impose death or the "returning to dust" upon every member of humanity.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

Paul uses the word koimaō (Strongs G2837) in both of the following verses.  Notice that the word is translated as “dead” in 7:39 and could not be appropriately translated as sleep.  Conversely 15:51 could easily have used the word died in place of sleep.

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, G2837 she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, G2837 but we shall all be changed,

Hebrews 9 is not about how many times a man dies, but about the one time sacrifice of Christ.  “Appointed once to die” is in accordance that Christ does not have to continue to be crucified for our sins in the way the Temple sacrifices had to continue to die.  Essentially it is saying that it is natural for a man to die once.

Hebrews 9:24-28 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: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In Hebrews 9:27 the Greek word "hapax" is translated as "once", it could just as well be translated as "conclude", certainly not a strong enough statement to make a claim of contradiction.
It is also generally accepted form scripture that Elijah (Kings II Chapter 2, Verse 11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24) did not die.
Therefore, While it is generally true that each man dies once, it does not mean that all men must die once.  Therefor, these verses are not in conflict with "Rapture" theology.


Why did Calvin reject these Catholic doctrines about Mary? The Catholic Church has a few teachings about the Mother of our Lord that are not accepted by many Protestants. This is not evident in the doctrines of many early Protestant reformers including Luther, Zwigli, and Bucer. From a theological standpoint, many protestant viewpoints do not differ significantly from the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary.

Calvin, on the other hand, does. For instance, Calvin disagreed with the practice of calling Mary the "mother of God," saying,

  "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.

Consider for example,

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary
The intercessory role of Mary

It's been said that Calvin's genius was not in creating new ideas but in developing existing thought to its logical conclusion. Did Calvin comment on these doctrines? What were his conclusions?

Calvin did not like appealing to any tradition or authority other than Scripture. He asserts that the Bible teaches that all have sinned and that all continue to sin, and on that basis each facet of Mariology falls down like dominoes (except perpetual virginity, which he neither defends nor denies based on what he perceives as Scriptural silence).  In addition, it is clear that his concerns for a Christocentric soteriology drive him to reject the Roman doctrines regarding Mary. To elevate her to the position they give her would be to deny Christ of his proper place.

Immaculate conception

In his comments on canon 23 of the Council of Trent, Calvin rails against those who say that any person other than Christ is sinless, including Mary:

  We condemn those who affirm that a man once justified cannot sin, and likewise those who deny that the truly justified ever fall: those in like manner who assert that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God is able to abstain even from the least sins. These are the delirious dreams of fanatics, who either with devilish arrogance deceive, or with hypocrisy fascinate the minds of men, or plot to lead them to the precipice of despair. As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary, when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith.

Assumption

The only mention of the assumption of Mary that I can find in Calvin's writings implies that he thought the doctrine false. Writing on relics he says:

  The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard.

Perpetual virginity

Calvin denies that Mary's words in Luke 1:34 necessitate a vow of virginity, but doesn't thereby take a firm stance one way or the other on her perpetual virginity:

  The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure.

In his commentary on Matthew 1:25 he stakes out a firmly agnostic position on the doctrine:

  It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Intercessory role

In his commentary on John 2:4, he says that Mary did wrong by telling Christ what to do:

  Though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. ... Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.

In his 1544 satirical attack on the Catholic faculty in Paris, he rejects the necessity and propriety of praying to Mary:

  To flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. ... What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?


Were there any OT prophecies that Jesus should be a wood-working carpenter I like the stone mason theory because that would make Jesus and St. Joseph (the patron of manly men) really tough.

But, is there any significance to the traditional conception of Jesus following St. Joseph as a table and chairs sort of carpenter as opposed to a millstone and monuments sort of carpenter borne of the Old Testament prophets?

Are there any allusions to carpentry in the Old Testament?

No. I researched exactly this when working on this answer. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament.


What is the Catholic understanding and explanation regarding Num 11:25? In Num 11:25,

  [The] LORD ... took some of the spirit that was upon him and put it
  upon the seventy elders[.]

From my understanding of Catholic philosophy, a spirit is a simple substance that cannot be apportioned.

What is the Catholic understanding and explanation regarding Num 11:25?

Eight verses earlier (Num 11:17) has the same "some of the spirit" wording. Fr. George Leo Haydock's commentary on verse 17 says:

  St. Augustine (q. 18,) reads "of the spirit which is on thee;" (Septuagint) referring it to the indivisible spirit of God, so that these ancients received what was sufficient for them, while Moses suffered no diminution. Thus one lamp communicates light to another, without being impaired. (Origen, hom. vi.) Theodoret (q. 18,) also adds, that a person confers baptism on thousands, and yet loses no part of the grace himself.

Haydock's reference to Augustine appears to be On the Trinity, Book 5, chapter 14:

  And I will take of your spirit, and will put it upon them; that is, I will give to them of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to you.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in Catechetical Lecture 16:25, says regarding Numbers 11:25:

  The seventy Elders were chosen; And the Lord came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses, and put it upon the seventy Elders; not that the Spirit was divided, but that His grace was distributed in proportion to the vessels, and the capacity of the recipients. Now there were present sixty and eight, and they prophesied; but Eldad and Modad were not present: therefore that it might be shown that it was not Moses who bestowed the gift, but the Spirit who wrought, Eldad and Modad, who though called, had not as yet presented themselves, did also prophesy.

In other words, it's not that the Spirit was "apportioned" but rather that the power of the Spirit was conferred on more people.


What rubric, canon, and/or rules forbid(s) the use of recorded music in a Tridentine Missa Cantata? The question is related to this one: What is the basis for forbidding prerecorded music in worship services?

However, I am interested in the Catholic perspective. What are the canons, rules, and/or rubrics that argue against the use of pre-recorded music during a Sung Mass, specifically, a Sung Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

I know pre-recorded music is not allowed because I've had seminarian friends, ex-seminarian friends, and priest friends expressly tell me so. But I need a source to help them back up their claims against a priest who has allowed the use of audio recordings of the chants and propers during Sung Mass.

Many thanks!

Recorded music is not permitted.

  As far back as 1958 in the important Congregation of Rites’ instruction De Musica Sacra we find at 60 c:

    "Finally, only those musical instruments which are played by the personal action of the artist may be admitted to the sacred liturgy, and not those which are operated automatically or mechanically."

  Recorded music does not substitute for a living human choir or singer. The artificiality introduced is contrary to the concept of our active participation in the sacred mysteries and the action of the true Actor at Mass, who is Christ the High Priest.

  That said, recorded music can be played in church for the purpose of instruction in singing. I also recall that it can be used outside church for the sake of processions.

  It may be tempting, from the desire to have excellent music, to use a recording. But that’s a no-no, I’m afraid. - QUAERITUR: Recorded music during Mass


How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament? I don't know this question is within the scope or not.

Its straightforward. How many of the Laws in OT can be transported to NT and usable?

These are some of the OT laws which are no longer useful in NT:

Animal Sacrifice
Circumcision
Unclean animals

But these are still valid in NT:

Do not worship idol
Do not Murder
Do not commit Adultery

Some of my confusion list:

Sabbath
Tithe
Passover

Is it possible to make a clear cut list?

Is this topic too vast to answer?

Most theologians agree that there are three kinds of Old Testament laws. Summed up well here.

  The Old Testament Law
  Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
  Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
  Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

Now these divisions in the laws are not actual, meaning scripture itself does not explicitly call a law one kind or another. The concept was derived from the teaching that the law was 'nailed to the cross' with Christ, and therefore, some of it no longer needs to be followed to the letter, simplistically speaking.

Thus, most Christian sects will say that the Christian must only follow the moral laws. What the actual moral laws are is hotly debated. One commonality, generally, is that many Christians consider most if not all of Leviticus as Civil and Ceremonial Law and most if not all of the Ten Commandments in either Exodus or Deuteronomy are Moral Laws. After that, they seem to be debated on a one-by-one basis.


In which denominations do people consider Mary, mother of Jesus, to be the "Second Eve"? I was reading DK Publishing's The Illustrated Bible Story By Story. The authors claim to be biblical scholars, historians, and pastors, which may give a Christian slant to the Bible, even though the audience, as they claim in the book, is for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. The authors love to use weasel words, such as "some biblical scholars think..." or "Christians believe..." without really pointing out which denomination actually believes that doctrine. They claim, for instance, that Mary, mother of Jesus, is more than just a mother of a child on Christmas cards. Mary is the new Eve, but unlike the first Eve during the Creation, Mary is obedient to God and suffers silently, because she has to deal with the social stigma of bearing a child out-of-wedlock. They even cite Isaiah to support the notion that a virgin would give birth, which may be interpreted as foreshadowing of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. As Jesus grows up, she becomes her son's disciple. It is said that she will be called "blessed" by all successive generations because of her son Jesus, and through her, people will achieve eternal life, whereas Eve denies humanity eternal life.

I wish to know how many denominations actually believe that Mary is regarded as the Second Eve (like how Jesus is regarded as the Second Adam). The authors of the book seem to evade the denominational issue, treating Christianity as one whole group.

In Coptic Orthodox text (not sure about other Orthodox Christians), Mary the Mother of Jesus is referred to as the "Second Eve". A quick Google search brought me to this link

  He is the Lover of mankind; she loves her each of children. He is our Father of all; she is the Lady of us all. He is the Good Shepherd; she is the blessed mother. He is the Bridegroom; she, the pure and blessed bride. He is the Light of the world; she is the mother of the true Light. He is the Second Adam and the Firstborn of all creation; she is the Second Eve and the pride of our race. He is the Alpha and Omega; She is the Ever-virgin. He is the Holy One; She is the Panagia. We worship You, O Christ; we magnify you, the holy Theotokos.


What is the purpose of a Rosary? I am not Catholic and I am pretty sure the Rosary is mainly a Catholic artifact, and in modern times devout Catholics seem to always have a Rosary (as in, you know they're Catholic because of the Rosary).

My question is what is the purpose of the Rosary?

(And as a non-Catholic Christian, should I get one?)

The Rosary is a very old artifact indeed and has evolved in time, the actual form of the Rosary is not what it was in the very beginning.

Rosary is a style of mental prayer that is based on repetition. This has been a tradition for many centuries since the early ages of monasticism. The emphasis upon repetition of brief, monologistic, prayer formulae laid the foundations for later monastic prayer traditions such as the Jesus Prayer and is the background for analogous forms of devotion in Latin Christianity such as the Hail Mary and Rosary.  (Columba Stewart OSB)

The modern form of the Rosary may took its form when Domique de Guzman preached in favor of it. This also led to the story that the Virgin Mary delivered the Rosary to Dominique.

In its actual form, the purpose of the rosary is to meditate in its mysteries while repeating Ave Maria etc… Repetition is useful to achieve concentration and focus. The Mysteries of the Rosary are essential facts in the life of Jesus, except for the Assumption of Mary and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin which are related to very old church traditions. It is not the purpose of the question to explain all of the mysteries, but a full list can be found in wiki. Meditation in the mysteries of the rosary is something that most christians do but in different ways (reading/studying the Bible, public preaching etc).

Probably you should not get a Rosary. If you want one, or you are curious about this type of prayer I recommend you to read the article or Steward (link above) in order to have more insight in this form of prayer. Then you only need to pray the Rosary and get used to it. Maybe you'll notice how the grace sheds a new light upon the mysteries of our faith.


What are the Biblical and theological problems with theistic evolution? Theistic evolution holds that God used evolution to create mankind.  It seems to follow then that this view must also hold the creation account in Genesis to be unhistorical.  So, Adam and Eve may have been people, but were perhaps the first humans whose parents were pre-human.

According to those who reject it, what are the Biblical and theological problem with theistic evolution?

Answers in Genesis writes about this topic a lot.  Their primary arguments are:

The Genesis narrative seems to be written as a historical one, and not allegorical.  Adam and Eve are treated as historical figures, having offspring, a genealogy, and death.  Thus treating it otherwise would be poor hermeneutics.
The Genesis account of the order of things created is different from the evolutionary account.
In the Biblical account, death enters the world as a result of sin, specifically Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-21).  In the evolutionary account, death must precede man.  This view is argued to undermine the nature of the fall of man, and thus the redemption of Christ.


Who was Saint Raynerius of Beaulieu? I came accross a website about Saint Raynerius of Beaulieu. Every source I can find tells me that his feast day is on Feb 22, and that he died in 967 AD. I want to find more information, but have no idea where to start! Please help!

Who was Saint Raynerius of Beaulieu?

St. Raynerius was Benedictine monk. He served at Beaulieu, near Limoges, France and died in 967. His feast day is celebrated on February 22.

The above information is about the most you will be able to glean off the internet.

One source has this to add:

  Let me introduce you to the Blessed Rainer.

  Rainer’s cult doesn’t seem to have stuck, but a man called Remi wanted it to and at some point in the reign of King Lothar III (954-967) he gave Beaulieu a manse in Oriols (in Davazac in the Limousin) for the benefit of his own soul and someone called Robert, and:

    “in honour of the blessed Rainer who was provost of the selfsame place already said, and because of this, that the selfsame man showed his great virtue to all who were there present, when a crippled adolescent who had been brought to his tomb, through the great felicity of his intercession, quickly came running before the altar of Saint Peter; and this great miracle was produced on the feast of Saint Martial.”

  This is almost all we get on Rainer; one other charter from 968 refers to a church or altar of St-Rainer that had already received some of the testator’s land in a place called Flexo in Puy d’Arnac, right by the monastery, so perhaps he was moved out into his own chapel, and that’s the last notice as far as I know (not that I have gone looking).2 Even here there are some interesting questions, though. Why didn’t the monks keep him, if he was already a focus of popular devotion? (Presumably one doesn’t dump one’s invalids in front of a nobody’s tomb when there’s an altar of St Peter nearby…) Why is it on the feast of Saint Martial (who was culted not here but at the local diocesan of Limoges) that all this occurred? It may be that, since this was a monastic church, people simply couldn’t access it except on feast days, of course, and the house’s ties to its bishops were usually pretty good early on so an open house for Beaulieu on St Martial’s in recognition of that is not implausible. - How a saint’s cult gets started

It seems that St. Raynier is one of those saints we know very little about. But let that not hinder you in order to try to find more information of this saint from Beaulieu.

Allow me to suggest three approaches in aiding you in your endeavour:

The Bollandists is probably your best bet. That is if you can find the the Lives of the Saints by the Bollandists. I can not recall how many volumes are in this, but I believe it to be around 18. If one can this saint anywhere, it will be here. These are hard to find books, so I suggest you try at some traditional Catholic Religious Orders, especially Benedictines.
Write or email the Diocese of Limoges with a request for further information.
Use google search engine in French (en Français of course) while employing various alternatives of spelling St. Raynerius’ name. This may be the least likely way to be of help, but it is a possibility anyway.

Good luck and hope this help.


What is the origin of throwing dust over head (as a sign of mourning) in the Bible? In Job 2:12, when Job's friends first see Job at a distance, they "did not recognize him, and they raised their voices, and wept aloud; they tore their robes and threw dust in the air upon their heads."

I know that tearing of one's clothes is a common mourning ritual as portrayed throughout the Bible, but is throwing dusts upon one's head as well? Where did the mourning ritual of throwing dusts on one's self originate? What is is symbolic of? What other accounts do we have in the Bible for it?

It would seem that is the earliest known Biblical reference to ashes being in Genesis, when Abraham accepts that he is nothing but dust and ashes before the LORD, so it is a symbol of humility before God.

  Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and
  ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord..."

  Genesis 18:27

Nevertheless, I believe there is also another symbol of great significance. It is important to note that ashes were taken from the burnt offering in the earthly sanctuary:

  And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers
  he shall put on his body, and take up the ashes of the burnt offering
  which the fire has consumed on the altar, and he shall put them beside
  the altar.

  Leviticus 6:10

Ashes could symbolize something very important, purification:

  Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and
  store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept
  for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of
  purification; it is for purifying from sin.

  Numbers 19:9

Many times sackcloth and ashes were put on for mourning a death, but other timer for mourning over sin and showing outwardly the repentance that should have been happening inwardly.

Here is the case of Ahab...

  But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in
  the sight of the Lord, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up. And he
  behaved very abominably in following idols, according to all that the
  Amorites had done, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of
  Israel.

  So it was, when Ahab heard those words, that he tore his clothes and
  put sackcloth on his body, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went
  about mourning.

  And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “See how
  Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself
  before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of
  his son I will bring the calamity on his house.”

  1 Kings 21:25-29

And also the case of the city of Nineveh where even the animals were covered in sackcloth and ashes...

  So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on
  sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to
  the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his
  robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused
  it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of
  the king and his nobles, saying,

  Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let
  them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with
  sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his
  evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if
  God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that
  we may not perish?

  Jonah 3:5-9

And Job's repentance...

  Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.”

  Job 42:6

They symbolize the blood of Christ.

  For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer,
  sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how
  much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
  offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead
  works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator
  of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the
  transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may
  receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

  Hebrews 9:13-15

We should take the example of how people mourned and repented and put ashes on their head, as repent in the same way. Instead of covering ourselves with ashes, claiming to be covered by the blood that Jesus spilled in the cross of Calvary for us. For that is how we are cleansed.

  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship
  with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us
  from all sin.

  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
  not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
  forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  1 John 1:7-9

TL;DR - ashes are representative of Christ blood which cleanses us from our sins.


The differences between the NKJV and KJV Bible translations I am planing to get one of these translations for my personal use. If these are too different from one another, I would like to get both.

I love to compare (for my personal study) different versions (even different languages within the same version) of Bible. I own many Bibles, but as of KJV or NKJV I presently do not own any translation. This is why I want to get some knowledge about each before deciding which one I will get...

I have read a Wiki webpage about NKJV, but the results there are not enough, as I'm not about modernized English language. I'm interested for the accuracy to the original scriptures.

What are the differences between NKJV and KJV translations?

The two translations are probably similar enough that you don’t need to get both.

I would recommend getting the KJV because of its historical importance. In your studies, it will be useful to get a historical perspective on passages, as well as a taste of truly traditional language.

I wouldn’t advise getting the NKJV in your particular case: anything it has that the KJV doesn’t will probably be in another modern translation. Those other modern translations will have other advantages in scholarship and readability; the NKJV won’t have these because it was intended as a touch-up of the KJV.

This isn’t to put down the NKJV; it’s perfectly adequate as a single translation. However, given that you’re using others as well, it doesn’t have anything that makes it stand out as excellent in a particular way, as the KJV does because of its historical and literary value. The purpose of the NKJV was to make the KJV slightly more readable and correct a few possible errors in translation; some users may find that helpful. The KJV, on the other hand, was the most-used translation for centuries and occupies an important place in the history of the Bible in English—and indeed, the English language.

For example, excerpting from Bible Researcher: Though the NKJV “followed the essentially literal method of translation”, it “is less literal than the NASB […] because of renderings carried over from the KJV”. In other words, where literalness might be a plus, it isn’t because of its heritage. On the other hand, it doesn’t have the literary weight of the original KJV. Quoting John Richard Green, another page on the same website says, “As a mere literary monument the [KJV] remains the noblest language of the English tongue, while its perpetual use made of it from the instant of its appearance the standard of our language.”

Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.


Did the LDS ever recognize non-LDS polygamous marriages? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) at one time performed and recognized polygamous marriages. In 1890, they ceased performing new polygamous marriages but continued to recognize polygamy (existing polygamous relationships were not dissolved, but no new polygamous marriages could be performed by the LDS church).

Did the LDS church ever recognize, or have a procedure for recognizing, polygamous marriages entered into under the rules of another religion? For example, Islam permits a man to have up to four wives. If a polygamous Muslim converted to the LDS faith, was there (or is there) a structure, policy, practice, or principle in place to recognize them immediately as a polygamous Mormon upon conversion, or were polygamous marriages "stripped" from converts in a sense?

Marriages performed outside of the LDS church are recognized by the LDS church as valid (though not eternal), but it is unclear if only monogamous marriages are thus recognized or whether they consider any marriage that is not inherently repugnant to the laws of God to be valid. Islam does recognize non-Muslim polygamy for persons converting to Islam to the extent that the polygamy does not violate the rules of marriage in Islam (in the referenced hadith, a convert to Islam who already had more wives than is allowed in Islam was allowed to choose which wives to keep), so it stands to reason that accommodation of polygamous converts to a faith is a realistic concern.

I will admit that mid-1800's Middle America wasn't exactly swarming with polygamous Muslims or polygamous followers of other faiths, so this was not a day-to-day concern, but still someone must have thought about the theory and what would eventually be done if the sphere of polygamous Mormons were to expand across the world.

If the LDS church had a procedure for adjudicating the validity or acceptability of a polygamous marriage solemnized outside of the LDS faith, that counts as an answer, even if that procedure was never invoked in any actual cases.

The Church has never recognized polygamous unions formed outside the Church.  The authority to enter into a polygamous union is given in Doctrine & Covenants 132 and can only be done (when it was authorized) inside an LDS temple (when temples were available) by Priesthood holders authorized to use the Sealing Keys.  Hypothetically, back when the Church was authorizing polygomous unions, someone married polygamously outside the Church would be required to be sealed by proper authority, in the proper place.  Which is a long way of saying, no, we have not and do not recognize the authority of other religions to create polygamous unions.

Having said that, it should be noted that the LDS church accepts marriages performed outside our church from a civil point of view, but we consider the marriages to be temporary, "until death do we part."  An LDS marriage (called a Sealing, "for time and all eternity") can only be performed by the same sealing authority I mentioned above in our temples.  In that regard, we don't recognize marriages performed by other religions at all.


One Essence Three Persons of Trinity I thought that the trinity came from the following revelations
(1) There is one God (I myself am He! There is no god besides me.)
(2) The Father is God
(3) Jesus is God
(4) The Holy Spirit is God
(5) The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy spirit, the Holy spirit is not the father.

I found the usual expression of the trinity in orthodox Christianity is "One Essence Three Persons". I think I understood why there is "Three Persons" but I don't understand why there is "One Essence". At a glance I thought it stands for There is one God. But the word Essence means different thing from "I myself am He! There is no god besides me". While the old testament revelation means one(singular) personal(I, me) God the "One Essence" means a very abstract "being" which can't be one person.

So my question is: where can I find One God by (1) above in the Trinity expression "One Essence Three Persons"? Can I assume "One Essence" means One God which is represented by I and me? Does "One Essence" mean monotheism in the sense of (1)?  But I doubt it from the very meaning of Essence which I think is very foreign in the Bible.

Sorry, let me clarify my question in the followings.

Who is "I" and "me" in (1)? Is it the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or God as One Essence?

If it is one of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit then how he can say "there is no god besides me?" So I want to have one God who can say that. And I am tempted to see One Essence as the one God. But I don't know if it makes sense or not since Essence is about "what" not "who" as you explained.

The relationship of the Persons (Greek hypostases) of the Trinity to their Essense (ousia) is addressed by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology as follows (in abridged form):

  The Three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity have one and the same
  Essence; each of the Hypostases has the fullness of Divinity unharmed
  and immeasurable; the Three Hypostases are equal in honor and worship.

  In the history of the Church, the chief dogmatic work of the Holy
  Fathers was directed towards affirming the truth of the Oneness of
  Essence, the fullness of Divinity, and the equality of honor of the
  Second and Third Hypostases of the Holy Trinity.

  In earliest Christian times, until the Church’s faith in the Oneness
  of Essence and the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity had
  been precisely formulated in strictly defined terminology, it happened that even those Church writers who were careful to be in agreement with the
  universal consciousness of the Church and had no intention to violate
  it with any personal views of their own, sometimes, together with
  clear Orthodox thoughts, used expressions concerning the Divinity of
  the Persons of the Holy Trinity which were not entirely precise and
  did not clearly affirm the equality of the Persons.

  This can be explained, for the most part, by the fact that in one and
  the same term some shepherds of the Church placed one meaning and
  others placed another meaning. The concept of “essence” was expressed in the
  Greek language by the word ousia, and this word was in general
  understood by everyone in the same way. Using the word ousia, the Holy
  Fathers referred it to the concept of “Person.” But a lack of clarity
  was introduced by the use of another word, “Hypostasis.” Some
  signified by this term the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity, and others
  the “Essence.” This circumstance hindered mutual understanding.

  Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great,
  it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal
  attributes in the Triune Divinity.

He elaborates specifically on how the Persons and the Essence of God relate to one another through the example of Christ:

  (a) The Lord Jesus Christ is not only God, but also became Man, and
  such expressions can be referred to His humanity; (b) that in
  addition, He, as our Redeemer, during the days of His earthly life was
  in a condition of voluntary belittlement: He humbled Himself, and
  became obedient unto death (Phil. 2: 7– 8). In keeping with these
  words of the Apostle, the Fathers of the Church express this condition
  by the words ekkenosis, kenosis, which mean a pouring out, a
  lessening, a belittlement. “Foreseeing Thy Divine self-emptying upon
  the Cross, Habakkuk cried out marveling” (Canon for the Matins of
  Great Saturday). Even when the Lord speaks of His own Divinity, He,
  being sent by the Father and having come to fulfill upon the earth the
  will of the Father, places Himself in obedience to the Father, being
  One in Essence and equal in honor with Him as the Son, giving us an
  example of obedience. This relationship of submission refers not to
  the Essence (ousia) of the Divinity, but to the activity of the
  Persons in the world: the Father is He Who sends; the Son is He Who is
  sent. This is the obedience of love.


Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example? As a follow-up to this previous question:

What is the biblical basis for singing in church?

Would worship be incomplete without song? Though their are examples of worship through song in the bible that doesn't necessarily mean to me that singing is a crucial component of worship.

Is it possible that it is entirely contextual?

For example, before the jukebox in bars we had drinking songs (aside: many of which have lent their tunes to the hymns churches sing today). That was just the standard form of communal entertainment at the time.

Maybe singing was just a convenient expression of communal worship in the early church and we've interpreted it to mean that we have to sing in every church service.

Does anyone see any flaws (biblically-based or otherwise) with this perspective?

P.S. I don't mean to rag on music. I happen to love the music in my church (so long as I can't hear myself sing :) ).

Allow me to answer this question via an illustration and another question.

Let's say there was someone who had an unhealthy emotional obsession with you. You tell your friends that you are concerned that this other person may even "worship the ground you walk on". Now, in this scenario, which of the following activities would make you more concerned that they worship you?

They sing you a song about how much they love you
They sing you a song about how how great you are
They spend a significant portion of their income, let's say 10%, buying gifts for you
They buy property on the town-common and erect a giant structure in your honor

That certainly is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. Clearly, all of these activities would be concerning, but I suspect some may be more concerning to you than others.

The Bible does not, itself, define what worship is. There are examples in scripture of people worshiping by singing, dancing, bowing, praising, and giving of gifts.

For instance, Genesis 24:26-27 shows an example of bowing and praising as a form of worship:

  And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord.  And he said, "Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren."

And Matt. 2:1-2 describes how the wise men traveled to worship Jesus by giving him gifts:

  Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?  For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."

Often we think of worship as being synonymous with music. Many churches even refer to the people leading the singing as the "worship leaders". Certainly music is a very common form of worship, but it is not the only one. I do not mean, nor intend, to denigrate music, as a form of worship, but we often forget that tithes/offerings and praise are also forms of worship.


Can Christians manufacture cigarettes? My husband and I were discussing an essay my nephew wrote where he says he wants to manufacture cigarettes. I thought it was a good dream but shouldn't we address whether this is something that is good to people who use them? My husband said there is nothing wrong with manufacturing cigarettes because the bible doesn't forbid it. Are there verses that are relevant to my question?

While it is possible that Christians may disagree about this issue, with some claiming verses such as:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. - 1 Timothy 6:17 NIV (emphasis added)

could be interpreted to grant implicit permission towards smoking cigarettes and that therefore their manufacture is morally neutral and an acceptable occupation to engage in; this is a considerably more difficult case to maintain since it has become common knowledge that smoking cigarettes is harmful.
Of considerable relevance to a Christian's consideration of whether an occupation is consistent with Biblical principles are the following:

35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22:35-40 NIV
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. - Romans 13:10 NIV (emphasis added)

Many would argue that taken together, the fact that cigarettes are known to be harmful  and the importance of loving our neighbor in a way that does them no harm constitute a strong reason that a Christian should not engage in the manufacture of cigarettes.


If Jesus's death was not eternal, then how can it be substitutionary for the eternal deaths of humans? Sinful humans are judged and sentenced to eternal death. But did Jesus experience eternal death? If so, how?  If not, how then can it be considered substitutionary for our deaths?

How do those who teach penal substitution explain this?

N - Assume that the total number of people who will ever live (besides Jesus) is N, a finite number.
ω - Assume that redeeming the smallest sin costs an infinite amount, equal to omega, the hyper-real number.
E - Assume that the most evil person who ever lived committed a number of sins equal to E. Given that our lives are finite, the number of sins that can be committed is finite.
N⋅E⋅ω - Multiply these values together to get the upper limit on the cost of redeeming all the sins of the world. This cost is infinite, but linear in omega.

All Sin ≤ N⋅E⋅ω

Jesus is the "King of kings" and "Lord of Lords". To me, that sounds like at least infinity squared, or ω². Jesus spent between two and three days in the grave (since a part of a day counts as a whole day in Hebrew usage, I am told). Assume the lower figure of two days. That makes Jesus payment equal to 2⋅ω²:

Jesus' Payment = 2⋅ω² >> N⋅E⋅ω ≥ All Sin

Since Jesus' value is so great, the fact that he only spends a finite amount of time in the grave does not prevent him from making a payment greatly in excess of the cost of our sin. This is because for any finite multiplier M, no matter how big, ω² >> M⋅ω. If this makes no sense, read about how to integrate Greens functions and call me in the morning.

For more on the hyperreal number system and how to perform arithmetic, algebra, limits, integration, and differentiation, see:

https://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html

Admittedly, this is not how most supporters of penal substitutionary atonement would answer, but the important point is that the infinity of our sin is smaller than the infinity of his love, and since we have a well-established mathematical framework for comparing materialistic infinities, there must also be one for comparing spiritual infinities.


Is there a registry of Book of Mormon Geography Theories? Years ago I attended a presentation at an LDS chapel by a man who had recently retired from his position as the head of the geography department at the University of Calgary - Dr. Lynn Rosenvall.
Dr Rosenvall has an extensive Book of Mormon Geography theory.
All these years after hearing his presentation, there's one thing he said before he started that I particularly remembered. He said something like "when I registered my geography theory, I learned that there are [some really high number] of registered Book of Mormon geography theories".
That idea of there being a registry of these theories from which a person could see other registered theories caught my attention. From time to time I've opened up a Google search to try and find said registry - but I've never been able to find anything like that.
Does a registry of only Book of Mormon geography theories exist? Or did I possibly misunderstand Dr Rosenvall's comment?
I could see his comment just being some odd way of saying he made his theory public, or that he had to register with some kind of government organization in order to get permits for historical excavation and study in his theorized location - and within that registry he happened to see other Book of Mormon theories. However, I know nothing about all that. What I remember of his comment seemed pretty directed at the idea that there's some Book of Mormon only registry.

From the article below it seems that Dr. Lynn Rosenvall and his son, David, have published various models of ‘Book of Mormon Geography’: The Baja model, the Peruvian model and the Great Lakes or Mesoamerican model, which seems to have the greatest support.  The Baja model is discussed in an article by Michael R. Ash for the ‘Mormon Times’ (November 22 2010), part of which says this:

Specific strengths for the Baja model include a climate (in the northern parts of the peninsula) that is very similar to that of the Mediterranean Basin (from which the Lehites would have derived). Another evidence in favor of the Baja model is the description of the land of Nephi and Zarahemla as nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32) and Nephi’s comparison of their land to an “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).

Like supporters of the Peruvian model, the Rosenvalls offer answers to criticisms of their model. I find their answers to be less persuasive, however, than those strengths I see in other models. Readers can follow the links to the Peruvian and Baja models and come to their own conclusions...  The topic of Book of Mormon archaeology in general will be dealt with in a future installment.    Source: https://www.deseret.com/2010/11/22/20367661/challenging-issues-keeping-the-faith-the-baja-model-of-book-of-mormon-geography

This link gives access to various articles - An Approach to ‘The Book of Mormon Geography’ http://www.achoiceland.com/home
A New Approach to Studying the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ Paperback – August 1, 2017 by Lynn A. Rosenvall (Author), David L. Rosenvall (Author) $13.39   https://www.amazon.com/New-Approach-Studying-Book-Mormon/dp/0998717800
I realise there is no mention here of any registry of only Book of Mormon geography theories, but it may be that the link to the Deseret/Mormon Times magazine will help you on your way.


What deuterocanonical books are quoted in the New Testament? When talking with a Catholic friend (I'm a Protestant) about the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, it occurred to me that a possible argument for their inclusion in the Canon would be their authority, measured in two ways:

Claiming to be speaking on behalf of God (e.g "Thus saith the Lord...")
Being quoted by other books considered to be a part of the Canon

Thus, I was wondering which (if any) books are quoted or referenced in the New Testament?

Also, are there any OT books that quote the apocrypha? (I have a feeling this may be a stupid question since, if I understand correctly, they were mostly written before the apocrypha.)

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable).

As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, or Ecclesiastes are quoted elsewhere in scripture. It should also be noted that the Apocalypse of Enoch is quoted in Jude as well as I & II Peter (and it is fairly obviously quoted in Jude and II Peter) and no one sees that document as canonical.


How were the books of the New Testament chosen? I'm interested in finding out:

what the process of choosing the books of the New Testament was,
when did it occur,
who did the choosing, and
what are the supporting evidences

The canon developed gradually over the course of more than 300 years. In many cases, when decisions were made, they were simply to acknowledge what was already being read in the churches.

The process started early. Already in 2 Peter 3:16, there is a reference to the letters of Paul:

  There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

So at least some of the churches were already circulating Paul's letters and reading them as scripture.

The Gospels were written after Paul's letters, and the Apostolic Fathers quoted most often from Matthew, but also sometimes from Mark and Luke, and eventually from John.

By the late 2nd century, Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.11.8) was claiming that the canon must contain exactly four gospels:

  It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.

This was to counter fringe groups that were producing their own gospels, as well as Marcion, who argued for just one gospel (Luke).

We don't know who compiled the list known as the Muratorian Fragment, but it also dates from the second century and contains this canon:

Four gospels (the existing fragment begins by naming Luke as the third and John as the fourth)
The Book of Acts
Thirteen letters of Paul (and then names two letters attributed to Paul but not accepted as genuine)
Jude
Two letters from John
Revelations "of John and Peter"
"the Wisdom written by friends of Solomon in his honour"

Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John were not yet accepted.

The fragment also recommends the Shepherd of Hermas as being worth reading but not qualifying for the canon because it was written "quite lately in our time".

By the early fourth century, the church historian Eusebius (Church History 3.25) sorts the known early writings into cateogories.

The first category is:

Four Gospels plus Acts

Next in importance are:

The letters of Paul
One letter each from John and Peter

These are the writings that are universally accepted by the church. Eusebius adds that some believe Revelation should be included in this set.

The next category includes books that are disputed by some:

James
Jude
2 and 3 John
2 Peter

These would all eventually be added to the canon.

The next category includes books that rejected from the canon but worth reading:

Acts of Paul
The Shepherd
Apocalypse of Peter
Letter from Barnabas
The Teaching of the Apostles

He mentions that some would place Revelation in this group, and others would include the Gospel of the Hebrews.

And finally, Eusebius mentions other writings that are considered heretical, which he says should be "cast aside as absurd and impious." These include the gospels of Peter and Thomas, among others.

The first known list of canon that matches today's New Testament is found in the Easter Letter of Athanasius for the year 367:

  Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Athanasius then adds that other books—the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd, the Teaching of the Apostles, et al.—should be read by new converts. So even as the canon was being defined, there was recognition that among the excluded books were some that were part of the church teaching, and some that were not.

Following Athanasius, we see the beginning of a general agreement throughout the church. The Synod of Hippo in 393 published a list of New Testament books identical to Athanasius' list, but also included an Old Testament canon. The Council of Carthage of 397 published a similar list, but is notable for separating Hebrews from the letters of Paul. The Latin Vulgate translation, commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 and completed by Jerome in 405, contains the same set of books listed in these. The Decretum Gelasianum, widely thought to be associated with the same Pope Damasus, lists the same 27 books but makes a distinction among the letters of John ("of the Apostle John, one letter, of the other John the Elder, two letters").

The Council of Carthage of 419 lists the same books, but does not make a distinction between two writers named John, and does not separate Hebrews from the letters of Paul.

In the East, there would still be disagreement for more than a century. The Council of Laodicea of 364 accepted all of the current New Testament books except Revelation. The Apostolic Constitutions, compiled around 380, has a Bible canon including this same list, but adding three writings attributed to Clement of Rome.

The first version of the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, omitted the books of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation; these books would not be translated into Syriac until the 6th century.

The Quinisext Council or Council in Trullo was held in Constantinople in 692 to reaffirm the rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumencal Councils; while this council did not publish a formal Bible canon, it did reaffirm the canons previously published, including those of Athanasius and others with the Book of Revelation. This set the stage for the 7th Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicea) in 787, which finally established what we now know as the 27-book New Testament canon for the entire church.


Are sins = crime in ancient Jews? Ancient Judaism is religious society. Religious society, unlike secular society, has a feature. What's prohibited by their religions are also prohibited by laws.

A lot like Muslim society right now.

So religious laws tend to be the law of the land. Now we have crimes that's not sin, like money laundering or gambling online. We also have sins that's not a crime, like fornication, and porn.

What about in Ancient Jews? Do crimes and sins always coincide?

The reason why this question is relevant to christianity is because
questions like is it a sin can be changed into is it a crime?

Of course, in practice there are tons of nuance. Things like smoking ganja in some states in US. Is it legal? There is no clear answer. The same way is something legal in ancient israel may vary from kings to kings and enforceable differently

While the Jewish Law from the Old Testament may focus on sins that result in actions that can be observed, investigated, and prosecuted by the state, i.e., crimes, it has also always said that there are thoughts that are sinful too. One of the most prominent examples of these is the last of the Ten Commandments: do not covet your neighbour's wife or property. You don't have to act on lust or greed for it still to be sin and an obstacle between you and God.


Philip the Evangelist? Why is Philip the evangelist called "the evangelist"? To my knowledge, he didn't write a Gospel.

Acts 21 8

  8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

Why is St. Philip the Evangelist called "the evangelist"?

In what way St. Paul uses the word "evangelist" may not be in the sense of writing a Gospel.

  "What is an evangelist?"

  An evangelist is someone who proclaims good news; in other words, a preacher of the gospel or a missionary. A person with the gift of evangelism is often someone who travels from place to place to preach the gospel and call for repentance. The human authors of the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are sometimes called “the Evangelists” because they recorded the ministry of Jesus Christ—“good news,” indeed.

  Ephesians 4:11–13 states, “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” In Acts 21:8 Philip is named as an evangelist, and in 2 Timothy 4:5 Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. These are the only three uses of the word evangelist in the entire Bible. Other people could be considered “evangelists” in that they preached the good news, including Jesus Himself (Luke 20:1) and Paul (Romans 1:15), but Philip is the one person specifically called an evangelist in Scripture.

  Philip had been one of the seven deacons chosen so that the apostles could do their work of teaching and prayer (Acts 6:3). Evidently, Philip had settled in Caesarea and had lived there for some 20 years before Paul arrived in Acts 21. Philip’s previous evangelistic work was in Samaria (Acts 8:4–8). He “proclaimed the Messiah” to the Samaritans (verse 5) and performed miracles, including casting out demons and healing paralytics. It is noteworthy that Philip performed water baptism in the name of Jesus, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur until the apostles came to Samaria.

  Peter and John’s presence in Samaria and the Spirit’s indwelling of the believing Samaritans (Acts 8:17) confirmed Philip’s ministry there. As an evangelist, Philip had preached the gospel, and, when the Samaritans believed it and received the Spirit, they were welcomed into the church. Where there had previously been division and animosity between Jews and Samaritans, there now existed the spiritual bond of love (Colossians 3:14). Philip’s trailblazing efforts laid the foundation for his hearers to receive the Holy Spirit by faith. The evangelist’s pre-work unto salvation is what those called evangelists have done ever since.

  Philip’s ministry as an evangelist continues in Acts 8 as he is led by an angel to go the desert road to Gaza. On the road he meets an Ethiopian eunuch—a court official to the queen of Ethiopia. Philip opens the man’s understanding of the Word of God, and the eunuch is saved. Philip baptizes the man, and the Holy Spirit snatches Philip away (Acts 8:39). Philip later “appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea” (verse 40). Everywhere he went, Philip shared the gospel. That’s what evangelists do.

There may be only a few historical hints as to why St. Philip is called the evangelist. It is not impossible that the term evangelist had anything to do with writing a gospel. It may be, in fact, that that he had a great influence on the evangelization of the Ethiopian nation, as well as to the fact that he preached the Gospel in many areas. Thus he was a true evangelist. In modern days do we not hear Billy Graham being referred to as an American "evangelist".

But first let us look at the New Testament:

  Philip bore a Greek name. He is first mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (6:5) as one of "Seven Deacons" who were chosen to attend to certain temporal affairs of the church in Jerusalem in consequence of the murmurings of the Hellenists against the Hebrews.

  After the martyrdom of Saint Stephen he went to "the city of Samaria", where he preached with much success, Simon Magus being one of his converts. He afterwards was told by an angel of the Lord to go to the road between Jerusalem and Gaza. There he instructed and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch; next he was "caught away" by the Spirit and "found at Azotus" (Ashdod), and then "pass[ed] through he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea" (Acts 8).

  Here some years afterwards, according to Acts 21:8–9, where he is described as "the evangelist" (a term found again in the New Testament only in Ephesians 4:11; [2 Timothy 4:5), he entertained Paul the Apostle and his companion on their way to Jerusalem; at that time "he had four daughters which did Prophecy". - Philip the Evangelist

In Catholic tradition he converted the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia and preach the Gospel wherever he went.

  Probably an Hellenized Jew. One of the seven Jerusalem deacons mentioned in the canonical Acts of the Apostles. Preached and performed miracles in Samaria, converting many including the magician Simon Magus. Commanded by an angel, he travelled from Jerusalem to Gaza. Converted and baptized the eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. Transported to Azotus, he preached throughout the region, finally returning to Caesarea where he lived with his four daughters, virgins with the gift of prophecy. Met with Saint Paul the Apostle on his last journey to Jerusalem. Some traditions say be became bishop of Tralles (modern Aydin, Turkey).

St. Philip the Deacon was a true evangelist.


Has the Catholic Church ever declared any group that identified itself Christian as not Christian? In her history, has the Catholic Church ever declared any group that identified itself Christian as not Christian?

The answer should start with the most recent declarations if any exist.

I know for a fact that the Catholic Church does not recognize those who do not baptize in the proper form and matter as Christians. Thus the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of groups such as Mormons or Jehovahs Witness (although I don't think the Jehovah's witness consider themselves Christian to begin with)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

There is also this from Catholic Answers ("What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?"):

  Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus, it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily" (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.


How could Abraham dine with God? How could Abraham have possibly dined physically with God as suggested in Genesis 18, especially when "No one has ever seen Him"?

1 Timothy 6:16
He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honour and eternal dominion! Amen.
Genesis 18:1-8
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs[b] of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

How could Abraham have possibly dined physically with God as suggested
  in Genesis 18, especially when "No one has ever seen Him"?

My understanding something like this (my own Trinitarian version).

Before incarnation, all the 3 person of Trinity has one name which is in that time the name is called Yahweh.

After incarnation, all the 3 person of Trinity has one name which is in that time the name is called Jesus.

The First Person will never be seen by human because the world won't be able to contain it, while The Second Person is every event when human see Him in a "limited" state.

1 Timothy 6:16 and John 6:46 is speaking about Jesus the Father (First Person)

Genesis 18:1-8 (and maybe some other verses) is speaking about Yahweh the Son (Second Person).

I'm not sure though :).


What is the name of the theory or thesis that the brothers of Jesus came from a previous marriage of St. Joseph? An important Christian tradition is that the brothers of Jesus, mentioned in the gospels, were born to Joseph by a previous marriage. Is there a name given to this tradition?

During the first century, the continuing virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus does not appear to have been important. Matthew 1:25 concedes that Joseph and Mary began sexual relations after Jesus was born, or is at least ambiguous:

  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Wikipedia states:

  There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century ... However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.

The church was moving towards a universal doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. The question was, where did the brothers and sisters, mentioned in  Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, John 7:3, Acts 1:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, come from? Wikipedia again:

  Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. But careful analysis of this hypothesis brings up a number of problems, and it remains only one of several explanations put forward. Another popular hypothesis is that the term "brothers and sisters" actually meant cousins.

The Catholic catechism states (my emphasis):

  499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

  500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

  501 Jesus is Mary's only son ...

In summary, the thesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage is quite ancient, if not universally accepted among Christians, but does not appear to have a specific name.


Why don’t Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ pre-existed before incarnation? I want to ask this again but in a different context. In the context of unitarianism.

Why Unitarians do not believe that Jesus Christ is God
And why Unitarians do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus prior to the incarnation.
And where do Unitarians stand regarding the belief of non-pre-existence of Jesus Christ before birth in relation to the Bible verse John 14:6 which states:

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me. (NIV)

If Christ did not pre-exist before the incarnation, how did the people before the incarnation (Adam and Eve, the prophets, the patriarchs and just about anyone before Jesus' birth) who where all considered holy and have communicated to God in one way or another, were able to do so, when John 14:6 clearly states no one can come to the Father (God) except through Jesus Christ?

Furthermore, Matthew 22:43-44 states (which is a direct reference to Psalm 110:1)

  He[Jesus] said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit,
  calls him 'Lord'? For he says, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'

In the non-unitarian context this is a clear evidence that Jesus pre-existed and an answer in the referred question linked on the top of this question, suggests:

  All of Scripture (the written Word) testifies of Jesus (the Living
  Word) and there has never been access to God the Father except through
  Him:

  You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have
  eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you
  refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:39-40

Although this needs more explaination from the author [Mike Borden]

So, what is the view of a Unitarian about this?

The difficulty in trying to answer the question WHY is that only a Unitarian could possibly know.  There is no problem in explaining WHAT they believe with regard to the person of Jesus, but as to why they deny that Jesus pre-existed before coming to earth, then any explanation given by a Trinitarian, for example, would be denied by a Unitarian.  Let’s start with WHAT they believe and from that we may discover the WHY part:
Unitarianism teaches that God is simply one (unity). Unitarianism rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.  Unitarians teach that Jesus was an inspired man, a great teacher, and an example to follow but he certainly is not God.

Today there are a number of Unitarian groups throughout the United States and the world; probably the most well-known and influential group is the Unitarian Universalist Church. Unitarianism is usually accompanied by (or perhaps inspired by) rationalism and anti-supernaturalism. In the final analysis, Unitarians reject the specific teaching of Scripture regarding the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, they usually reject the Bible as divine revelation in favor of human reason. Horizontal relationships between human beings are considered more important than the vertical relationship between a holy God and sinful man.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarianism.html
To the Unitarian Universalist, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason. Most sayings of Jesus recorded in the Bible are regarded as embellishments on the part of the authors. Among the Universalist beliefs: Jesus did not die to save mankind from sin, as man is not a fallen sinner; emphasis is placed on humankind’s capacity for goodness; sin is completely relative, and the term itself is rarely used; man saves himself through personal improvement, salvation being a purely worldly experience, a "waking up" to the world around oneself. This is very important, for death is final. Most Unitarian Universalists deny the existence of an afterlife, so all we have on earth is all we’ll ever get.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarian-universalism.html

From this we can deduce that Unitarian Universalists place their own reasoning above the teachings of the Bible.  Since they reject the Bible as God’s inspired word, then they are unlikely to grasp who the biblical Jesus really is.  Their Jesus appears to be a man-made concept, designed to fit in with their own ideas.
Then we have Biblical Unitarians who believe that the Bible is the source of truth.  They represent the more “conservative” branch of Unitarianism and many beliefs of Biblical Unitarians are in keeping with orthodox Christian beliefs. However, they depart from orthodoxy on one major point in regards to their doctrine of God.

Biblical Unitarians deny the Trinity, teaching that God is one being (hence the word Unitarian in their name). Jesus, according to Biblical Unitarianism, is not the eternal Son of God; rather, He was created by God in the womb of Mary. Jesus was later exalted by God and given authority over creation, making Him like God, but He remains a finite, separate being with a beginning.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Unitarianism.html

WHY do they reject what the Bible tells us about Jesus being the eternal Son of God?  It all boils down to their view that the One Being of God must exclude the eternal co-existence of Jesus.
Jesus said this to the religious leaders who refused to acknowledge who he REALLY was:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life (John 5:39-40).

It would be interesting to get an answer from a Unitarian that defended their position with regard to Jesus being created, because I would really like to know WHY they hold that view. I have my own opinion, but I'm keeping that to myself!


Do these Scripture say that prayer along with fasting is more powerful than either alone? I am aware that Jesus placed much emphasis on both prayer and on fasting. And I am not really sure that the following Scriptures call for doing both at the same time, but it can be taken to believe that it is referring to simultaneous prayer and fasting.
All Scriptures are from the King James translation

Matthew 17:21  Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Mark 9:29  And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Would someone more versed in Biblical interpretation give me some guidance.

Let's break down the scriptures you used.

This kind...

In Matthew 12:45 we read that there is a demonic hierarchy. Some demons are more wicked, or more powerful, than others.

  Matthew 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other
  spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there:
  and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall
  it be also unto this wicked generation.

In the Old Testament as Daniel was visited by an angel he was told that he needed help from Michael to defeat a greater power so that he could bring the revelation to Daniel.

  Daniel 10:12-13 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the
  first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to
  chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come
  for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me
  one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came
  to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Prayer elevates the worshiper into the supernatural and causes the things of this world to fade away. It dims the eye to the worries and cares of the natural world. Prayer is so important that in Acts the disciples appointed the first deacons to administer to the widows and so forth so that they could be more devoted to prayer (and study). It is far easier to minister when you have spent time in His Presence.

  Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the
  ministry of the word.

Fasting, likewise, denies the things of this world to better serve him.

On fasting, it's important to note that when Jesus fasted forty days he was not hungry until after the fast was over.

Luke 4:2
Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

So this kind of spirit would not come out except by the faith of someone who had yielded themselves to God through prayer and fasting. No doubt the disciples had spent the day in fellowship with other disciples, but had neglected to spend time with their heavenly Father. When a test came, their (spiritual) eyes had not been sufficiently dimmed to the things of the world and they could not cast out the evil spirit.

Should you fast and pray simultaneously? Here is some advice based on my personal experience. I would encourage you to try praying early in the morning before breakfast, or skip the last meal in the day and pray into the evening. In this way you can both fast and pray as I believe the early believers did. If you feel led to fast further, and do not find yourself growing hungry but instead are being fed by fellowship with the Lord, continue fasting. In my experience fasting is easiest when I have something or someone weighing on my soul and need an answer from God desperately.


Why do women have inferior rights in the Bible? The Bible has many parts (in both the Old and New Testaments) that shows the inferior status of women.

Does this come from status in ancient times or does it have another basis?
Why do woman today have almost equal rights not only in society, but also within Christianity?

Some examples:

Burn the daughter (Leviticus 21:9, Genesis 38:24)
Rape the daughter (Judges 19:24-25)
Virgins worth (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
General female inferiority (I Corinthians 11:3, I Corinthians 11:8-9,  I Cor. 14:34-36,  I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)

It is easy to take a few verses and try to draw a conclusion about women being inferior, but there are so many verses that run counter to this common understanding.

We start near the beginning of the Bible:

  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
  make a helper suitable for him." (NIV, Genesis 2:18)

The Hebrew word for helper, ezer, is also used to describe God himself in  Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11.

So, we have that women were made to be a helper, not a servant to men, and, don't remember where this came from but, God didn't pick a bone from his feet to be under man, nor from his head to be over him, but from his rib to be equal with him.

Then in Genesis 2:27-28 and Genesis 5:1-2 they were created in the likeness of God.

In Genesis 3:16-19, when they were both booted out of the Garden, both were punished by God.

In the OT we have writings and examples of influential women, such as:  Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Huldah, Jochebed, Miriam, Noadiah, Rachel, Rebekah, Rahab, Ruth and Sarah

In the 10 Commandments we also see that we need to honor both of our parents: Exodus 20:12

In the NT Mary and Elizabeth were models of virtue and faithfulness as both put their trust in God: Luke 1:26-45.

Jesus allowed women to travel with him and the Apostles, Luke 8:1-3, though women were normally relegated to just staying at home.

"Proper" Jews didn't talk with Samaritans, and especially the women, but Jesus had a long talk with the woman at the well: John 4:4-30, 39-42.

Women were generally not well educated, nor given roles in religion, but a lady named Mary sat at the feet of Jesus while he taught, and he suggested her sister Martha do the same: Luke 10:38-42.

In the early church women were held as near-equals and given positions of authority: Acts 1:12-14, 9:36, 16:14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16.

We also have that there is no difference based on gender, status or wealth, for example, in the early Christian church: Galatians 3:26-29.

OK, so we see in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 that women shouldn't speak in church, but in  1 Corinthians 11:5  we see that women were allowed to pray and prophecy, so if we look at 1 Cor 14 there was some problem in the church in Corinth, as this was about some disruptive practices, so it may be that some women were causing issues based on talking too loud or often, but 1 Cor 14:33-35 was not to be taken as a church norm.

We see in Ephesians 5:21-30 that though men should be in charge of the family, women are not slaves, but should be treated with honor by the husbands.

So, if we remember to love each other as we see in 1 Cor 13, and treat our wives with the same respect as Jesus showed to the church by willingly being crucified, then we should see that women are treated carefully, with love and respect.

To see how modern times change the role of women we can look at Mary Magdalene (http://www.marypages.com/MaryMagdalene.htm).

She was not a prostitute, but was a vital part of Jesus' ministry, as is evident as the first person He appeared to when He was resurrected was her, not Peter.  It was in the middle ages I believe that the story that she was a prostitute was created.

She was called the Apostle to the Apostles,and was seen to have been held in high regard by the early Church.

This would have been unusual for a woman to be seen this way, but the early Church, and Jesus, were not always bound by cultural mores, but there were times when they did give in, such as telling women to wear veils, as they were focused on spiritual issues and not on worldly ones (2 Corinthians 5:17).


Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve? After Cain killed Abel, he was cast away and said "whoever finds me will kill me", there he took a wife.

I think this indicates there were other people on the face of the earth created by God, but are there any other explanations?

The reason I ask this is that Adam and Eve are supposedly the couple that gave birth to all humanity, which I think is genetically impossible.

According to the Bible, God created no other people besides Adam and Eve.  Adam was created from the dust of the earth, while Eve was created from Adam (perhaps his rib).

Genesis 5 indicates that Adam and Eve had quite a few children.  We have names for Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons (plural) and daughters (plural).  So, at a minimum, they had seven children.  If we assume that the birthrate for women is just equal to that of men, then Eve may well have had five daughters, pushing the total to ten.  The earth at that time was very fruitful, and people lived a very long time, so she may well have had more than that.

Genetically speaking, it is not impossible at all that one couple could give birth to all humanity.  Just because one scientist asserts something to be true does not make it so.

See this article regarding skin tones and this article regarding a challenge to that claim altogether.


Are there any documented instances of anyone moving a mountain in faith? Jesus said we could tell mountains to move (Matthew 17:20), if only we had faith as small as the size of a mustard seed. Has this ever happened? If so, has it been documented or is there any evidence?

I'm thinking of a genuine supernatural miracle.

I doubt anyone has.  I think this is either because there is no one who has faith the size of a mustard seed, or those who do have faith large enough have no need to move a mountain.


If I am a Christian does this mean I need to support the modern state of Israel? *note: please do not mistake this question as necessarily reflective of my personal option.

Where this question comes from may not be obvious to some depending on where you live, so let me explain. Here in the Southern part of the United States of America, my parents' church (evangelical, Assemblies of God) will hold, from time to time, a pro-Israel rally. At these rallies, up on stage, as well as members of the audience will wave American and Israeli flags together during a worship service. Prayers are offered up supporting Israel and afterwards a sermon is delivered explaining why it is so important for Christians to support Israel.

It is not typical, as far as I know, to actually hold rallies in support of Israel, but the general feeling among Christians here is that they should be in full support of Israel (and by extension, support policies of the USA that support Israel).

The argument generally goes something along these lines:

God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.
Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.
The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophesies (see Hal Lindsey’s "Late, Great Planet Earth")
That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.
That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.

My question: is this a legitimate viewpoint? Should we as Christians support the modern state of Israel? If you think these are legitimate reasons, then please expand. Otherwise, why not?

While I believe there are political reasons to support or not support Israel, I don't feel any of those are "Christian" reasons to support Israel.

  God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.

Israel is a Jewish state.  Unless God is guiding the people to follow Jesus, I'm not sure what the correct direction would be.

  Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.

If it is still their right to have it by God's will, then they will have it.

  The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophecies (see Hal Lindsey’s "[Late, Great Planet Earth][1]")

I'm not sure I know of any end time prophecies that require Israel to be held by Jewish (or any other) government.

  That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.

While politically many will say we should support democracies, I don't think the Bible tells us to support democracies.

  That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.

I don't think we should be declaring war on Islam.  As Christians we are called to be peaceful.