What is the significance of "G12" in the evangelism strategy "G12 Vision"? According to Wikipedia:

  The G12 Vision is a Christian evangelism and discipleship strategy established by Pastor César Castellanos, the founder of International Charismatic Mission Church.

However, it doesn't explain the origin of the name. What is the significance of "G12" in the evangelism strategy "G12 Vision"?

According to GotQuestions.org G12 stands for Government of 12.

Castellanos believed that God spoke to him in a vision, laying out what He desired the Church do in response to the end times. This vision was the “government of 12” principle, a hierarchal pyramid scheme of discipleship and authority. He proposed that because Israel had 12 tribes, and Christ had 12 disciples, the Church needed to base their structure on this governmental model and become a cell-church.
The G12 model works this way: a pastor trains 12 people to be cell leaders. These cell leaders are each responsible for discipling 12 others in a cell group, usually with a minimum number coming from the community and not from within the church they attend. After a specified time, and after certain strict requirements are met, these cell members then become leaders themselves, and start their own cells. Thus, the membership of the church is multiplied, and the message of the Gospel is taken into the community.


Is baptism by water necessary for salvation? John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If the Kingdom of God is inside you (Luke 17:21), does this mean that one cannot have true inner peace with God unless he is baptized by both water and the Holy Spirit?

And does this mean that a person cannot receive salvation into the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism in both water and the Spirit first?

No, it is not necessary for salvation. Either Christ's work is complete at the cross or it is not.

Lets go to scripture.

Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Water Baptism is merely a symbol of the Holy Spirit which baptizes.

No man made tradition provides salvation.

Also , Apostle Paul when he was In prison.
Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

He didn't tell him, go get baptised and then you will be saved.


Who documented biblical events before Moses? From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?

This is a great question, and one might have thought that we have nothing at all to go on, except guesswork.  But actually we do have something to go on, and that is the existence of Hebrew words in early Genesis which are loan-words from other languages.
According to Robert D. Wilson, throughout most of the first five books of the Bible the predominant language from which words are loaned is Egyptian.
But there are no Egyptian loanwords in the chapters prior to the descent into Egypt.  The loanwords in the first chapters are from Babylonian and Sumerian, suggesting that either Moses simply fully incorporated something already written into Genesis or he summarised something already written - and what he included was something which had been written by an (unknown) author who lived in southern Mesopotamia/modern southern Iraq.
Personally, I think the most likely means, even the only means, by which he could have received these writings was via the Hebrew community, and they received them from Abraham.  (Even though Moses would have had access to the libraries of Egypt these would not have contained divine/prophetic literature, or even if they had contained prophetic literature it is still necessary to have a reliable witness to authenticate them.  The authenticating witness to these writings in my opinion could only be the Hebrew people.)
For more information on this look at "Foreign words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity" by Robert Dick Wilson,and scroll down to start reading from page 210.
(The English of) Hebrew words known to be of Babylonian origin are: Adam, Abel, Methusaleh, Amraphel, Chedorlaomer, Tidal, Abram, Sara, Babel, Ur, Erech, Haran, Havilah, Calah, Padan, Ninevah, Eden, Shinar, to cover with pitch, pitch, cherub, oven, to dwell, flood.
(The English of) Hebrew words known to be of Sumerian origin are: Arioch, Gihon, Pishon, Hiddekel, gopher-wood, cereal, canal.
The whole of this work by R.D. Wilson is worth studying but its not an easy read.
Foreign Words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity by Robert Dick Wilson:-
https://biblicalreadercommmunications.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/foreign20words20in20the20ot20as20evidence20of20historicity20192820ptr2026-2.pdf


What is the biblical basis against the idea that Jesus descended into hell? Related question: What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?

The question linked above provides a number of biblical arguments in support of the "descent into hell" (or "hades") or the "harrowing of hell" referred to in the Apostles' Creed. However, I'm aware that some reject that clause entirely for historical reasons as well as biblical reasons.

What are the biblical arguments used against the descent into hell by Jesus following his death and prior to his resurrection?

Wayne Grudem is probably the most prominent theologian who has provided a detailed argument on this topic.1  He first disputes the common interpretations of five passages: Acts 2:27, Romans 10:6–7, Ephesians 4:8–9, 1 Peter 3:18–20, and 1 Peter 4:6, and argues that none of them clearly teach any form of the "descent into hell" doctrine.

He then proceeds to his argument against the doctrine, beginning with Luke 23:43, Christ's words to the thief on the cross:

  And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (ESV)

Grudem argues that the word "paradise" here must mean "heaven," the dwelling of the Father, because that's how the word is used elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7).

Grudem also points to Christ's exclamations on the cross: "It is finished" (John 19:30) and "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46).  Both of these, Grudem argues, suggest that Christ expected that his suffering and estrangement from God would immediately end, and that he would be welcomed to the Father.  Grudem also notes the similar words of Stephen in Acts 7:59.

Grudem thus interprets Christ's death and resurrection as similar to his concept of death and resurrection of believers: that the body dies and remains in the ground, while the soul/spirit immediately goes to heaven.  Then, later, the soul/spirit is reunited with a resurrected body.

Other opponents of the clause follow Grudem's arguments.  John Piper's arguments regarding Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 3 echo Grudem's, and he finds Christ's statement to the thief as convincing evidence that Christ was in heaven between his death and resurrection.2

Grudem, "He Did Not Descend Into Hell." JETS vol. 34, no. 1, p103–13; also available in his Systematic Theology (582–94).
Piper, "Did Christ Ever Descend to Hell?" Interview, 2008-03-03.


How is the historical accuracy of the Bible defended? Loosely tied to the idea of Biblical Inerrancy, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Scripture is reliable.  This includes the idea of being reliable as a source of "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Along with this, comes the assumption that the Bible is reliable historically.

Many of the books and passages in the Bible are written as a historic record of events.

Setting aside the fact that many people view some of those events as strictly allegorical, there are events that are clearly written as if they are actual history. The Exodus from Egypt, and the wandering in the promised land, for example. The history of Israel's cycle of turning from God, being punished/conquered/enslaved, then repenting and being liberated by God is another example. The Book of Acts, the life of Jesus, all of these are clearly written as if the events actually happened.

One of the more common attacks leveled against Christianity by its detractors is the statement that one event or another didn't really happen that way, or that the Bible isn't a reliable historical document - that we can't claim that the events that are recorded in the Bible actually happened, because using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning.

Example:
 - How do you know Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected as recorded in the Bible?
 - Because the Bible says so. (Easy fodder for a non-believer to claim circular reasoning.)

However, is that really a fair representation of how to judge the historical reliability of Scripture? What, exactly, are the rules and arguments that apologists use to defend the historical accuracy of Scripture?

I'd like to start out by pointing out that history is a murky subject.  We're all familiar with the saying that "history is always written by the winners".  There are plenty of things that are accepted as historical fact that are either in dispute, or that are later proved false by new evidence.  Just because something is regarded as reliable, accepted historical "fact" does not mean that it is, indeed a "fact" or Truth.  This applies equally to secular history and the historical accounts recorded in Scripture.

There is another issue here, as well, in dealing with supernatural events as described in Scripture.   It's covered pretty well at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/hartlich.html in the "Thesis 2" section.  In summary, it tells us that, as applied to Sacred Texts there is a limit to how much we can actually verify.  It gives the example of Matthew 28 as follows:

  Here it is related that — as the women came to the grave — a great
  earthquake took place, "for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven
  and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance
  was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him
  the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to
  the women..."

Several paragraphs of detail go into the fact that we could, theoretically, verify that an earthquake took place, but not that it was caused by an Angel of the Lord.  We could also not verify the appearance of said angel, nor the trembling of the guards.  (But neither could we refute it.)

So, from the outset, the apologist acknowledges that we cannot prove or disprove the supernatural nature of events.  We are limited to those things, and those things only that can be proved historically.

Failure to recognize this is to set us up immediately for straw-man attacks, and to be accused of circular reasoning.

That said, the first rule in determining historical accuracy to those events that we can verify is to use the same rules that would be applied to secular historical documents.  Using a different set of rules to determine historical accuracy of Scripture is dishonest, and shows a bias that is not acceptable in applied historical methodology.

As much as I hate using Wikipedia as a source, the core principles are defined here in layman's terms much better than what I can find at other sources.

  Core principles

  The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by
  two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén
  (1997):1

  Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than
  narratives.
  Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
  The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description
  of what actually happened.
  A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
  If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
  The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite
  motivations.
  If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is
  increased.

  Procedures

  Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step
  procedure for source criticism in history:2

  If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
  However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the
  test of critical textual analysis.
  The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it
  is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
  When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source
  created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
  Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately
  reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with
  facts known by most contemporaries.
  If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
  When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best
  with common sense.

Using this framework, apologists point to the fact that the Gospels, and many of the Scriptures were written by eyewitnesses to the accounts, as well as to internal textual criticism, additional supporting information from extra-Biblical texts (where they can be found), and from archaeology.

Based on archaeology alone, we have overwhelming evidence for the historical accuracy of much of the Bible.  But, as the atheist point out, this still proves nothing about the supernatural aspects of Scripture.

Fortunately, the field of apologetics doesn't deal with proving the Truth of Scripture.  As stated in a different answer, Christianity assumes a measure of faith.  Apologetics deals with defending what is defensible from detractors, not proving anything.

When it comes to the supernatural, apologetics doesn't say "We can prove this happened as recorded in Scripture".  However, arguments can be made, and questions can be asked about which proposed version of events is the most plausible, or reasonable.

Unfortunately, that's a grey area, and personal bias and preconceived notions will likely dictate what any one individual will think is "the most plausible explanation."

Therefore, the best we can do in trying to defend the supernatural aspects of the Bible is to say "this is one possible explanation.  I believe it makes sense because....  Take it or leave it."  This falls outside the realm of defensible apologetics and into debates over personal opinion based on interpretation of provable facts.  Those provable facts may well be within the realm of "on-topic" for apologetics, but the unprovable portions are iffy.  They may offer reasonable explanations, but nothing that will satisfy your typical "I won't believe it unless you can prove it to me" skeptic.

This is not to say that providing views on why you believe the supernatural aspects is wrong, or that it doesn't have a place in witnessing, or defending your beliefs.  Just know the difference between what can be conclusively proven and what needs to be accepted by faith.  You can be sure that most of the atheists and non-believers do, and are ready for this type of mistake.


When did the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) adopt the doctrine of the Trinity? The Community of Christ–formerly known as the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS)–is a schism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). They separated from the main body of the church after Joseph Smith's death, believing that the line of prophetic succession should follow Smith's bloodline.

Since then, they have made many fundamental changes to their doctrine, the most surprising change being that they now believe in the doctrine of the trinity.

Joseph Smith saw God the father and the Son standing side by side.

  I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all
  description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me,
  calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved
  Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History 1:17)

Joseph Smith clearly taught that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost were individual beings, and that both the Father and Christ had bodies of flesh and bone (see D&C 130:22).

To this day the Community of Christ identifies Joseph Smith as their founder. (see Community of Christ: History), and just prior to his martyrdom, Joseph Smith was quoted saying:

  "I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the
  subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been
  preached by the Elders for fifteen years." (Joseph Smith, June 16,
  1844).

At what point did the RLDS abandon the most fundamental doctrine of the restoration and adopt the trinity?

Paul Edwards, in his book "Our Legacy of Faith: a brief history of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)" (Herald Publishing House, 1991) indicates that the transition to belief in standard American trinitarianism occurred gradually towards the turn of the 20th century, and that the transition was complete by 1890:

In 1878 the "Reorganization accepted the inheritance of "early" Mormonism and thus identified itself with a more orthodox Christian position of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit as an infinite, almighty, and all-powerful Godhead." (p.144)
Previously-held views "simply faded away as the more orthodox Christian view of God, that of the Trinity, became the primary belief of the movement. By 1890 the plurality of gods was referred to as a 'doctrine of man.'" (p.161).

For more detail one would probably need to dig through the old Conference papers themselves.


Who first associated the fourth beast of Daniel 7 with the Roman Empire? Daniel's vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7 has long intrigued commentators.  Regarding the vision of the fourth beast, the text reads:

  7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. [ESV]

A fuller description of this beast, and interpretation of the vision, appears in verses 19–27.

Based on this and an apparently related passage in Revelation 17, commentators have historically associated the Roman Empire with this fourth beast.  C. F. Keil writes:

  These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman.  "In this interpretation and opinion," Luther observes, "all the word are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it." (source)

Keil notes that this is a slight overstatement; at least one early commentator, Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) held that the fourth kingdom referred to Macedonia.  Wikipedia notes that shortly thereafter, Jerome (347–420) advocated the now-traditional view that the fourth kingdom is Rome.

Was Jerome the first to make this connection?  Which Christian author first associated the fourth kindgom of Daniel 7 with the Roman Empire?

Several commentators before Jerome make this connection.  We'll mention three,1 starting with Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386), who indicates that he is not the originator of this interpretation:

  The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms.  And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters.  For as the first kingdom which became renowned was that of the Assyrians, and the second, that of the Medes and Persians together, and after these, that of the Macedonians was the third, so the fourth kingdom now is that of the Romans. (Catechetical Lectures, 15

Over a century earlier, Hippolytus (170–235) had written:

  Then he says: “A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron—the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist)

See also Scholia, Daniel 7.9 for similar analysis.

But Hippolytus seems to draw this interpretation from his teacher, Irenaeus (d. 202).  In Against Heresies, 5.26.1, he writes of the connection between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17, and puts the empire in which he lives – Rome – in the middle of it:

  In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules (the earth) shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel. [emphasis added]

So it does indeed seem that we can trace this view back even further, all the way to the second century.  It's likely that even Irenaeus is not the originator of this idea, but it seems that his works are the earliest surviving that make the connection.2

Notes:

1 Another would be Victorinus (d. 304) (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 17).  Shortly after Jerome, Theodoret (393–460) says the same (Commentary on Daniel, 7, p203)
2 Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 31) and the Epistle of Barnabas, 4 quote the relevant passage, but don't directly connect the fourth kingdom to Rome.


If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C? (Trinity) If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C?

If the son is God (A=x) and the father is God (B=x) and the holy ghost is God (C=x), then why isn't the son = the father = the holy ghost = God (A=B=C=x)?

This is a logical fallacy

Person and Godhead do not belong to the same genus.

This is your argument, and it makes use of the transitive property of identity: "Jesus is God, and the Father is God, therefore Jesus is the Father."

The problem is that "Jesus" is a person, and "God" is an essence or substance.  Let's look at a similar argument: "Joe is human, and Martha is human, therefore Joe is Martha."  This argument fails for much the same reason.  Joe is not the same sort of thing as human, just as Jesus is not the same sort of thing as God.  The transitive property of identity requires the same sort of things being compared.


According to the Catholic Church, whom does Jesus refer to as the “ruler of this world” in Jn 16:11? We read in Jn 16:7-11 (NRSVCE), the pre-crucifixion message of Jesus to his disciples:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.   And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:   about sin, because they do not believe in me;   about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer;   about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned."

In some versions, like the NIV, we find the phrase 'prince of this world' in place of 'ruler'.
A prince is subordinate to the king and is required to seek permission of the throne before executing something. But a ruler, in the general sense, has powers of his own and is not ordinarily subordinate to anyone. Now, in texts like Job, we see the Devil seeking permission from God before undertaking some activity according to his own will, which in a way equates him to a prince, though an evil one.
My question therefore is, according to the Catholic Church, whom does Jesus refer to as “ruler of this world” in Jn 16:11 and what is the interpretation of said term?

The Greek word in John 16:11 is ἄρχων (archōn - see Strong's G758). The "Outline of Biblical Usage" gives: ruler, commander, chief, leader. The Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count gives a total of 37 (ruler 22, prince 11, chief 2, magistrate 1, chief ruler 1)
In Rev 1:5 it is referred to Jesus, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς ("the prince [or ruler] over the kings of the earth")
In Matthew and Mark, Satan is repeatedly referred to as the "prince of the devils" (or "ruler of the demons" - Matt 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22)
In John, Satan is repeatedly referred to as the "prince of this world" (or "ruler of this world" - John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11)
In what sense Satan is "prince [or ruler] of this world" is made clear at the narration of The Temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13)
Here is a selection of official Catholic references from the Holy See.

Pope John Paul II, Angelus, Sunday, 22 November 1998
Pope Francis, Angelus, Sunday, 22 November 2015
Pope Francis, Saturday, 22 April 2017

In all of them, Satan is the "prince of this world", who hates Jesus and those saved by Jesus.


Why do non believers hate being confronted with the truth? As I understand the bible those who do not accept Jesus into their hearts go to hell. I understand it's more than just being a "christian", you actually have to have this relationship with god. And you'd think people would be happy when you tell them that Jesus loves them and that, without him they'd never be able to experience a love like his love, but it would appear nearly all of them think you're some sort of idiot, some will even go as far as to make a mockery out of you. How do you deal with this?

And I understand it's a choice but I feel the need to help these people find Jesus in their lives. But it's difficult when there's that one person who goes on the defensive.

Jesus answered that question for you:

  Mark 6:11  And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"

God himself will not interfere with man's free will, otherwise we would all still be in the garden of Eden. Each man or woman chooses their own destiny. And that is just how God wants it to be.

There is an ongoing argument about predestination, and whether God created some people as fodder for the fire, but according to Jesus that was not God's intent.

  Matthew 18:14  Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Jesus gave us the Great commission which is to preach the word to all the Nations, not to force salvation onto anyone.


What exactly are 'private vows'? What exactly are private vows? After somebody I vaguely know noted that she has taken private vows, I have been rather too fearful to admit my ignorance. I went home, looked through the Code of Canon Law and after an hour or so, I was even more confused. Apparently, it's not the same as recognised private vows, which apparently are public vows despite the name. Can somebody shed light on this conundrum?

Since you question specifically states Catholicism, I will give you a quote from a Catholic source:

  For centuries people have been embracing the evangelical counsels and
      binding themselves to observe them by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
      The most common example we have of persons making these vows are the men and women
      who make their profession of vows as religious.  These religious make what is known
      as public vows.   Not all people, however, are called to make public vows, but
      instead elect to follow the evangelical counsels through private vows.

  There is one primary difference between a public vow of poverty, chastity, or
      obedience and a private vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience.  Public vows are
      made in a religious profession, or profession in the hands of the bishop of a
      diocesan hermit and have the effect of placing the individual in the consecrated
      state in the Church.  Private vows are made outside of this context of
      Ecclesiastical acceptance and they do not change the canonical status of the
      individual making them within the Church.

I do  not know if only those three fall into what can be a private vow or not.


What is the evidence that the New Testament authors believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record? The term "canon" is used to describe the collection of books that are considered by Christians to be divinely inspired, and therefore to belong in the Bible. (See: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?)

The Muratorian fragment, a 7th century Latin manuscript copy of a text dated as early as A.D. 170 or as late as the 4th century, is one of the oldest known listings of a New Testament canon.

What evidence is there in the New Testament itself, or based on other ancient texts, that the authors of the various New Testament books believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?

What analyses and arguments have been made by scholars to demonstrate that the authors of the various New Testament books either believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?

The question is:

Did the NT writers themselves know that they were writing an inspired record?

Though there is at least one major exception, which is mentioned below, for the most part the New Testament authors simply wrote their accounts without commenting on whether they were inspired. We can therefore glean only a few clues here and there about their state of mind, and in particular, about their sense of whether they were writing on their own or under inspiration from God.
Here are a few such clues contained within several of the books in the New Testament.
Luke and Acts
This is the often overlooked introduction to the Gospel of Luke:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

And the parallel introduction to the book of Acts:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)

Here we find the unidentified (in the text itself) author of these two books speaking confidently of "having followed all things closely for some time past," (KJV: "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"), and citing this as his basis for writing "an orderly account" of these events.
Clearly the author of the Gospel of Luke felt that he was writing an account based on his own knowledge and investigation into the subjects and events he wrote about. This strongly suggests that the author of Luke and Acts did not think of himself as being divinely inspired in the writing process.
Paul
Much material could be pulled out of Paul's letters to attest to his state of mind in writing. However, here is one particularly clear passage about the author's sense of the source of his writing:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband. . . . To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, italics added)

Here Paul, the author identified in 1 Corinthians 1:1, distinguishes between:

"charges" or commands, given not by himself, but by the Lord, and
instructions given not by the Lord, but by himself.

This is a clear indication that the author believed that at least some of what he wrote was on his own initiative and from his own belief and understanding rather than being inspired by the Lord.
Revelation
By contrast, the book of Revelation starts out with this prologue:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3)

The book then speaks in the voice of its human author:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: (Revelation 1:4)

Here we find the human author clearly proclaiming this book as a "revelation of Jesus Christ," which was made known "by sending his angel to his servant John."
Clearly the author saw himself as writing under divine inspiration through the mediation of an angel. And indeed, a number of times he indicates that he was in an inspired, or spiritual state, had heaven opened to him, and heard voices from heaven. For example:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.  saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Revelation 1:10-11)
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. (Revelation 4:1-2)
And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down." (Revelation 10:4)
Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll that is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land." (Revelation 10:8)
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19)

These and other expressions in the book of Revelation indicate that its author felt a high level of spiritual and divine inspiration for the visions he recorded in the book.
Conclusion
This is by no means an exhaustive list of passages in the New Testament indicating something about the state of mind of the authors with regard to their sense of whether or not they were writing an inspired record.
However, even these few passages show that there was a wide variety of experiences on the part of the various New Testament authors, ranging from a sense of writing their books or letters based on their own ideas and efforts in some instances, all the way to a sense, in other instances, of receiving and recording words and visions given to them by God through the angels in heaven.


What is the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation Is forgiveness and reconciliation the same thing?  What needs to happen for forgiveness to occur?  What needs to happen for reconciliation to take place?

Reconciliation is a process which involves several distinct phases, not necessarily in this order:

Conviction
Repentance
Confession
Forgiveness
Restitution

So, in my view, forgiveness is a part of an overall process of reconciliation.

  8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

  1 John 1:8-10

In general terms, first we experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to repentance.  With a repentant heart we confess our sins one to another (or to a priest or minister, if that's your persuasion).  We then receive forgiveness and instruction on how to make restitution, as appropriate to the wrong doing (if our confessor is doing his job).

With God in regards to sin, forgiveness is dependent on true repentance (and, if you are Catholic or similar, confession to a priest).

Between people, specifically as regards interpersonal relationships, it is possible to forgive but never be reconciled with the other person - if the other person does not repent, there may be no reconciliation.  It is also possible to make restitution with or without forgiveness and never be reconciled because of personal hurts.

It seems to me that until there's actual interpersonal reconciliation, and the whole process has occurred, that sin still remains for one or other party or both.  Though wounds are covered with a band-aid - they still remain unhealed, eventually to get infected and fester.

Allowance should be made for when reconciliation is not possible, such as when one party has died.


A confusion about the fullfilment of the law Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
  have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell
  you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
  the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
  until everything is accomplished.

If we stop reading the paragraph at the former bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the latter bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all.

Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.

As @curiousdanni pointed out in comments, the text here does not put forth the eternality of the Law and Prophets but rather highlights two conditions in which they may or will pass away:  If the current created order passes away or if everything in them is fulfilled.  It is possible that these two are to be understood as concurrent but that is not necessary.

Jesus said that he came for the purpose of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, some of which has been accomplished and some of which is still yet to be.  Paul makes it clear that the Law's purpose as a means for obtaining righteousness has been brought to an end.  This is not a terminal end but an objective end;  Jesus is the righteousness that the Law was intended to produce.  "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." - Romans 10-4  Also, the epistle to the Hebrews is filled with elements of the tabernacle and sacrificial system that typified and were fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews chapter 9).  In 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ is pointed out as the spiritual rock the Israelites drank from in the desert and there are many more such examples.  The Messiah was also prophesied to need to come and to suffer and to enter into glory (Isaiah 53 and Luke 24:26 among many others).  So, there are a great many aspects of the Law and Prophets which have already been fulfilled in the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus into heaven as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28) and the inauguration of the Church (Hosea 2:23).

But the Law and Prophets are not yet passed away.   "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." - Romans 3:31  We do not set the Law aside because "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." - Romans 7:12  What has ended regarding the Law is that it is no longer the means by which righteousness may be obtained.  Christ has met every requirement of the Law for us in that regard; he has kept the Law in a positive sense, not only in letter but in spirit and he has borne the curse of the Law for us as well so that, through faith, we are now able to fulfill the righteousness that the Law required: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:3-4  This is why Paul speaks so harshly against those who claim that he taught a flaunting of the Law (Romans 3:8)

And there are many prophesies yet to be fulfilled regarding the second coming of Christ (Zechariah 12:10), the resurrection (Job 19:26), the permanent settling of God's people in the Land (Ezekiel 36), the creation of a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21) to name just a few.

In summary, God's Word is said to never pass away even if heaven and earth do pass away (Matthew 24:35) but the Law and Prophets, having been given for specific and limited purpose do have an expiration date that has yet to be reached.  It is also certain that these will ultimately be totally fulfilled by Christ "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory." - 1 Corinthians 1:20

"so shall my word (Christ) be that goes out from my mouth;
    it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
    and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11


How many bilateral covenants occur in the Bible? As the title asks, how many bilateral covenants occur in scripture between God and His creation (this does not include bilateral covenants between humans and humans, e.g., a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, or the covenant between Avraham and Avimelekh).

Here is a list of the covenants which the Bible explicitly describes God making. It is possible that there are other covenants (such as with Adam), but the Bible does not use covenantal language to talk about them.

The Noahic covenant, which God made in Genesis 9:8-10 with all humans and land animals/birds, in which he promised to never again flood the earth
The Abrahamic covenant, which God made in Genesis 15:17-20 with Abram, in which he promises to give to Abram and his descendants the land of Canaan for ever
The Mosaic covenant, which God made in Exodus 19:3-8 with the people of Israel, in which he would take them to be his special people if they are faithful to him.

In a way the Mosaic covenant was made and remade a few times. Other important passages include the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the confirmation of the covenant in Exodus 24, the remaking of the covenant in Exodus 34 after the golden calf, and the confirmation of the covenant by the next generation in Deuteronomy

Phinehas' covenant, which God made in Numbers 25:12-13 with Phinehas and his descendants, in which he promises them peace and the priesthood

God made many exclusive promises to the priests in other places, but this is the first time that he makes a covenant with them

The Davidic covenant, which God made in 2 Samuel 7:8-16 (and called a covenant in 7:28) with David, in which he promises that one of David's descendants will always have the throne of Israel
The New Covenant, which God promised to make in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and which he did make through the death and resurrection of Jesus

There are a few references to the New Covenant in the NT, but not many. I would guess that covenants were an outdated cultural artefact by the time of the NT, so that covenantal language is one of the less common ways to talk about the gospel. But there still are some references to the New Covenant, particularly in Hebrews 8-9.


What is the practical application of the story of the woman caught in adultery? John 8:2-11 tells us the story of the woman caught in adultery:

2At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It's a wonderful story of Christ's compassion on an obvious sinner... as well as a story of Christ's cleverness when dealing with the Pharisees.
But what is the practical application of this story?

In the story, everyone there recognised that they were sinners, including the top religious leaders. We should recognise that in ourselves also, no matter how 'good' we try to be. Jesus' compassion is not just for the woman but also for all of us.

This comes to the heart of Christianity and is the whole point of John's Gospel: everyone has sinned/rebelled against God and faces his just judgement. But God sent his Son Jesus to come and save such sinners, and we're invited to trust in him so that we're no longer condemned by God.


Jesus's atonement equivalent to sinners' punishments When Jesus went to the cross, he experienced

the ordeal of his arrest
agony for three or so days
The loss of the rest of his natural life

When a sinner sins (without accepting Jesus), he experiences a long time in Hell.

How can Jesus be said to take on the sins of mankind, if the punishments of those sins of mankind exceed the suffering Jesus actually experienced. Why would Jesus not have to personally go to Hell in order to take on the punishment of the sinners?

Since you did not ask for the doctrinal position from any particular denomination, I will answer this question from a biblical perspective.  The Bible does not explain how Christ's sacrifice was sufficient, but it does make clear that it was sufficient.  For instance:

Is 53:10-11 (NASB)

  But the Lord was pleasedTo crush Him, putting Him to grief;If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,He will see His offspring,He will prolong His days,And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.As a result of the anguish of His soul,He will see it and be satisfied;By His knowledge the Righteous One,My Servant, will justify the many,As He will bear their iniquities.

Since the Bible is not clear as to why Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient, believing that it was sufficient is a matter of faith.  There are some helpful explanations which have been given, but they are speculative:

Jesus was Innocent - When an innocent person accepts the punishment for someone else, it softens the wrath of the Judge and the sentenced may be reduced.
Jesus Became Sin - According to 2 Cor 5:21, Jesus became sin for us.  Many people interpret this to mean that Jesus became sinful and was spiritually separated from His Father.  He experienced spiritual death and a loss of communion with the Father.  This change is beyond any specific punishments which might be experienced.
Jesus is Divine - As a member of the Godhead, Jesus' sacrifice is more significant than that of any mere created being.


German Bible translation like NKJV, ESV, NASB.. etc I want to buy a German Bible translation but am not sure which one is best. By "best" I mean one that takes the least amount of doctrinal liberties in translation, so no paraphrase versions (eg, "The Message"), no denominational versions (eg, the Catholic "Douay Rheims"), and so on. My preferred English translation is NKJV, but I also own ESV, NIV, and several others. My preferred Spanish translation is the Reina-Valera 1960, if that helps. I know of the following German versions: Schlachter2000, Neue Genfer, Luther 1545, Hoffnung Fuer Alle, Froschauer Bible, Zuercher Bibel, (among a few others) of which I heard the Zurich Bible was the best.

To be clear, I want a translation with no Apocrypha, that is easy to read (eg, NKJV is easy to read, where the KJV is not), and faithful to the original texts (I find that even the ESV makes certain doctrinal translation choices, which kind of bothers me). I don't mind the use of the Textus Receptus as a base text, as long as the translation points out where the TR diverges from the most reliable manuscripts (as most modern translations already do), but please do mention it if this is the case.

I would be extra grateful if you can include a link to buy a (cheap) soft-cover, portable version.

If its for trying to learn German, you should probably buy a parallel.  And probably the easiest to get your hands on would be the ESV-Luther 1984 Parallel from Crossway.

If you want a German Bible by itself, you can get the 1912 revision of Luther's translation from the Trinitarian Bible Society. That would be more archaic German, and its sold by TBS because they consider it to be the closest to the KJV.

Without actually knowing German it would probably be pretty hard to find any others. Although once you figure out you should search "Die Bibel" rather than "German Bible" it makes it easier.


What is the LDS (Mormon) position on eschatology? There are several different eschatological (end-times) perspectives in Protestant Christianity, including the following:

Amillennialists - end times prophecies are largely figurative
Post-tribulationists - the rapture will not occur until the end of the tribulation
Mid-tribulationists - the rapture will occur 3.5 years into the tribulation
Pre-tribulationists - the rapture will occur prior to the tribulation.

What is the eschatological view of the LDS church?  Is it one of these or something different altogether?  From what teaching does it arise--the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrines and Covenants, or something else?

The rapture is the catching away of believers, which is believed by some to be taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13

The tribulation is the 7 year period of time of great trouble, spoken of in Revelation.

The chronology adopted by Latter-day Saint interpreters (and heavily grounded in LDS scripture) most closely approaches what you would call mid- or post-tribulationist.  (That terminology is not current in Mormonism, in any case, nor is rapture:  LDS prefer to say "those caught up to meet Christ", which is closely tied in with the return of the city of Zion, and talk also of the trials and wickedness of the last days without attaching a specific phrase to the suffering.)
D&C 88 is a good source for the LDS doctrine on the last days, among others:

For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig tree.
[more Revelation-type disasters]
And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;
And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.

This is followed, in this chronology, by the sounding of other trumps, presumably analogous to those of Revelation (although this is not explicit in the text).  One distinction that is made is that as Jesus Christ returns with the City of Zion, the faithful are caught up to meet him, and together they return to the earth (rather than ascending to heaven).  This is preliminary to the millennial reign of Jesus Christ over the whole earth, as a key theme of Mormonism is the sanctification and elevation of this earth to celestial status, rather than relegating it to destruction.
There are a lot of popular LDS books which discuss hypothetical timelines, but officially there is no clear position taken on the order of events in the last days---only that prophecy will be fulfilled.  Other major LDS sources on the last days are D&C 45, 101, 133, and Joseph Smith's translation/version of Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price.  The Book of Mormon is conspicuously silent on this point, if I recall correctly, with the exception of few messianic Isaiah quotations and the confirmation that a Second Coming is to be expected.  The Gospel Principles manual chapters 43 and 44 are a good place to look for more information as well.


What is the Calvinist Perspective on the Tribulation What view of the tribulation do Calvinists generally tend to take?

I am aware of the eschatology espoused in the Westminister Confession , but I don't see anything related to the tribulation there.

The reason that I ask for a "Calvinist perpective of Tribulation" is that I believe in pre-destination / TULIP.

I do not know if this belief supports / contradicts certain views of the tribulation, and would like to better understand this subject.

So, what is the Calvinist perpective on the tribulation?

As a Calvinists and someone who has mostly read books from the 1500 to 1700s I have never encountered any other view beside Christ's second coming as the end of the world.   In other words there is no talk about a rapture other than the final one at the end of the world. (I am not saying there is none to be found, just that among the main Calvanists leaders I have never encountered it). Sorry I have not listened to the audio you linked.

What I have noticed in reading old commentaries for around 30 years now, is that there is a general expectation that we will one day experience a great revival and this will be related to the Jews accepting Christ as their Savior. (Romans 11:25) Not all believe this but it is a strong trend, especially with someone like Jonathan Edwards.  Secondly, I have noticed a general common trend that when Christ does return there will be few Christians on the earth, and that after the revival, their will be a great Apostasy before he comes.  This is typically associated with Christ saying the world will be 'like the days of Noah' during the second coming. (Mathew 24:37)

What this final tribulation means, someone like Edwards is again a good reference and he sees it as the world surrounding the church and ready to persecute it but actually before any real harm is done Christ returns to save the church and judge the world.

In summary a common reformed idea is that a great revival will occur in Christianity most likely caused by the shock of the majority of Jewish people turning to Christianity.  This great time might continue for a long period, but then suddenly the church will fall away during some unknown generation.  This will trigger the world to unite against Christians in the most apocalyptic way, but before any real action is made, Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.

I have not provided proofs to my answer as it would begin to amass a very long post, I am only speaking from the point of being a Calvinists and having read many thousands of pages of Luther, Calvin, John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, which represent very key leaders of Calvinism through the period of 1500-1800.

I am not sure if this is of any help to you, but that is all I can really say about end times tribulation from a traditional perspective. Matthew Henry seems to do a pretty good job in capturing typical views in his commentary on Revelation if you would like more detailed accounts on end times perspectives from standard historical Calvinists.

Note: I should add, once we leave the 'traditional Calvinists' around the late 1700 and early 1800s and arrive at modern day Churches, many who are Calvanistic in their view of salvation do not hold traditional views about a symbolic millennium. In stead many believe in a literal millennium and tribulation with a rapture before or after and whatever other possible combination. In this sense a Calvinistc view can be anything even though Calvin himself thought the idea of a literal millennium as 'too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation'.


In what manner does the Father draw men to Jesus Christ? John 6:44 This question is for Evangelicals who do not hold a Calvinist view

Jesus Christ states that the Father alone draws men to Himself.

  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”
  John 6:44

What did Jesus mean by this statement?
How is this statement to be understood in the broader context of
Scripture such that God remains Sovereign, drawing certain men to
Jesus Christ but men still have free will to choose, up until the
point of being drawn by the Father to Jesus Christ or thereafter?
The response should be able to address/explain Acts 13 why the Jews
were not drawn but the Gentiles were and Acts 16 with Lydia who went
from hearing to paying close attention, therefore drawn. Or other NT
examples.

Jesus does add a qualifier

  “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
  John 6:45

How can one hear and learn from the Father if first they have not
been drawn to Jesus Christ yet but clearly still able to hear and
learn from the Father prior to been drawn to believe in Jesus
Christ?
What is the catalyst that allows them to hear and learn that they
might be drawn?

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” John 6:44

What did Jesus mean by this statement? Most basically what he meant was just what He said.  Unless a person undergoes a new birth they cannot either see or enter the Kingdom of God (John 3) and that new birth is not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God (1 John 1:13).  Fallen humanity, apart from the drawing power of God, does not seek after Christ nor can they or will they come to Him.  Strict Armenians are stonewalled here by this unwavering statement of God's sovereign and necessary involvement in the salvation of men but how to tone down the Calvinists denial of human choice so clearly invited by Jesus in Matthew 11:28-29 among others? "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

If I may I will summarize the remainder of your questions as, How does this drawing work while maintaining both God's sovereignty and human choice?

First I suggest that these are not mutually exclusive.  God sovereignly created human choice in the Garden of Eden and protects this faculty within us even when it most often leads to our demise.   I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live - Dt 30:19  In the next verse choosing life is equated with loving God and obeying Him.  It is His desire for a relationship based upon love that has necessitated our possession of a faculty of choice.

Sin has ruined our prospects for making such a choice.  It is not that the choice to seek after and love the Lord has been removed by God, else the invitations peppered throughout Scripture to "return unto Me" (Zech 1:3, Mal 3:17, Jer 15:19, John 7:37, etc.) would be a cruel joke.  Rather our natural disposition "in Adam" is to reject God's authority to determine good and evil and to take that mantle upon ourselves and thereby "be like God".  There in the garden, while Adam and Eve hid, God sought them out and began questioning them.  He drew them out of hiding...although they possessed the ability to do so they did not come until he called.  "So the Lord God called out to the man, "Where are you?"". Genesis 3:9  The earth then was cursed "for our sake", for our benefit that is, because having rejected God in Paradise we would certainly not seek after Him absent difficulty.  God draws us through the difficulty of life in a cursed creation.

Such is the condition of every person, enslaved by sin (Romans 6:16) and fear of death (Hebrews 2:15) they are unable to please God (Romans 8:8) or to desire to do so "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:7-8
We could come to Christ apart from the Father's drawing us but we don't want to because we understand that it requires submission.  Here it approaches the level of cannot but the prohibition is not from God as the Calvinists suppose.  The inability of the natural man is one of volition:  He will not.

Here lies the explanation of the unbelieving Jews of Acts 13 and all others who hear and refuse to believe:   "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  Natural man wants to obtain life through some measure of intellect or effort and refuses to humbly come and receive.

Jesus said that if/when He was lifted up He would draw all men to Himself (John 12:32) and it is then explicitly stated that he said this in reference to the method of his death.  It is fair to say, then, that the means by which God the Father draws people to come to Jesus is by sending His Son to be lifted up on the cross.  Remembering that Jesus told Nicodemus he must be lifted up just as (in the same way that) Moses lifted up the bronze serpent we see both sovereign drawing, divine provision, and human choice in operation.  In Numbers 21 we are told that those who looked upon the bronze snake lived: apparently some did not look.

But how is the Son of God on the cross "just as" a bronze snake on a pole.  The venemous snakes were sent as judgement and bitten people were dying.  Bronze speaks of judgement (both divine and self) and the bronze image of what was killing them was lifted up so that when they looked at it (with faith) recognizing their culpability and God's justice they could receive His mercy.  Jesus is the Word of God made into flesh (John 1:14) and the Word of God on the cross is an image of what is killing us.  Adam put God's Word to death in himself as the prime guiding principle for life and it is that death that we carry about in our bodies.  The Word of God was lifted up on the cross so that we may recognize our participation in that which is killing us, that we may repent of it, and that we may come to Him in order to have life.

In short, God draws us to Christ by sacrificing Him.  Jesus draws us to Himself by that act of obedience.  The Spirit has come to persuade:  "And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:  concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;  concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. - John 16:8-11

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of those who will believe.  The proclamation of the gospel exposes the hearer to the drawing power of God in the crucified Son and those who choose to believe are exposed to the saving power of God in His resurrected life.


Is swearing (making an oath) considered bad in Christianity? My Catholic friend and I were chatting once and I said something along the lines of "I swear I'm not lying". She asked me to promise to her and not to swear since it's discouraged in her religion. I asked the reason and she just said that's what the church told her.

Is this claim true? Is swearing discouraged in Christianity? If so, why?

It may help to know that I was swearing to God that I was not lying. Is this allowed in Christianity, or is it appropriate only for important situations?

The key passages on this are:

  James 5:12 (ESV):
  But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth
  or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no,
  so that you may not fall under condemnation.

and

  Matthew 23:16-22 (ESV):
  “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple,
  it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is
  bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold
  or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If
  anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the
  gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men!
  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift
  sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by
  everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and
  by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the
  throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

It seems that the issue here is that everything we say should be true.  We should not need to claim a distinct truthfulness for a particular statement that contrasts to falsehoods in our normal dialogue.  All of our statements should carry the same level of honesty and truthfulness.

In English, I don't think we really use the word "swear" in this way.  Oftentimes it's just an expression.

The Pharisees were distinguishing between the object on which someone was swearing, when it shouldn't have mattered if there were any swearing at all.

So, if the person is sensitive to this particular phrase, you could simply explain that you are using the word as an idiom and not swearing by the temple or the gold of the temple or anything like that.  Hopefully, the person can understand that.

It is actually quite dangerous to just accept church teaching without question.  Knowing what without knowing why can lead to significant problems.  This is where the question of Sola Scriptura and Church Authority collide.  Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians.  The commendation was based on the fact that they didn't just accept what Paul taught, but "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  If the Bereans were commended for this, we would do well to follow that pattern.


Did early Protestants consider transubstantiation to be idol worship? During the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic denomination, it is taught that the wine becomes the actual blood of Christ.  The term is called Transubstantiation.  As far as I know, only Catholics believe this.

During the Protestant version of the communion ritual, it is believed that the wine and bread are symbols of the blood and body of Christ.  Did early Protestants believe that this ritual engages in idol worship or is there another reason why they changed the ritual?

Simple answer: Not all

The opinions of the early Reformers were divided on this issue, with Luther on one end of the spectrum:

  When asked whether Lutherans should do away with the Elevation of the Host in the liturgy, Luther consistently replied in 1544:
  By no means, for such abrogation would tend to diminish respect for the Sacrament and cause it to be undervalued . . . If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?
  Joachim, one of Luther's friends, added:
  We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ. {Table Talk, ed. Mathesius (Leipzig ed., 1903), p.341. From Hartmann Grisar, Luther, 6 vols., London: 1917, vol. 4, pp. 239-240}

Although Luther's view differed somewhat from transubstantiation and he argued strongly against the concept of the mass as sacrifice, his view of the real presence of Christ in the host did not allow him to view it as constituting idolatry.

And Zwingli at the other end:

  If idolatry is to be banished, then one must have recourse to the pure preaching of the Word. This is exactly what Zwingli engaged to do. He began a series of discourses on the books of the New Testament, and introduced the preaching of the Word at every service. He was well called "the trumpet of the Gospel." He was perfectly successful in introducing and grounding the reformation of the Church and of the fatherland by an uninterrupted vindication of the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. For him the Church was at its purest where the preaching was at its strongest. In God's light we see light. Where faith in Christ is thriving, idolatry will wither away. And faith comes by the hearing of the Word. Zwingli knew this and acted upon it.
  In a public disputation at Zurich, in 1523, Zwingli set forth sixty-seven theological theses outlining the reformed doctrine. Thus he declared that "Christ who offered Himself once, is for ever a perfect and satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of all believers, from which we conclude that the Mass is no sacrifice." In Romanism the Mass is the pivotal act of worship; but if the very concept of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass is anti-biblical, then Zwingli was not reluctant to expose it as such. The spiritual welfare of the people was at stake.
  People were to serve God in truth, not in the bondage of superstition. And if transubstantiation is false, then Romanists are evidently idolatrous. Zwingli would not tolerate this.

This was an extrememly controversial issue amongst Protestants in the 16th Century, and after an increasingly heated dispute via correspondence, the outcome of the Marburg Colloquy on this particular issue (despite agreeing with each other on everything else) was that they could not come to agreement.


How do Methodists understand the Apostle's Creed? In Methodist churches, I usually see the following:

  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.

What do "holy catholic church" and "communion of saints" actually refer to?  Also, regarding the phrase "I believe in the Holy Spirit", what is the view on that? Shouldn't our belief be in Jesus Christ?

The Phrase "Holy catholic Church" does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to the "universal church", i.e. all true Christians, whatever earthly religious organization they belong to. The word 'catholic' just means universal. That and the "Communion of Saints" refers to a belief in the essential unity of all true Christians, whatever disagreements they currently have.

Methodists, along with most Christians believe in a God who is a Trinity; three persons in one God: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is as much God as the Father or the Son, and is believed in just as much.

EDIT: The text you quote is only the last part of the Apostle's Creed, the whole of which also includes statements of belief in the Father and the Son. The full text can be found here, in several very-close versions. The Church of England Common Worship version is probably closest to what Methodists would accept.


How do Catholic marriage laws differ by region? (I'm asking for roman catholicism, but you can answer eastern or other full communion's if you want.)
Example: You can see some of my questions on marriage law in the Philippines (for example, Q1 and Q2; and also Q3, that's not about the Philippines specifically). Ostensibly:

The Philippines differs from other Catholic countries in that Filipinos or well anyone gets married in the Philippines and wishes to be annulled in the Philippines is required to get an secular annulment (or foreign secular divorce. not sure.) before applying for a church annulment. In other countries, this requirement relaxed to a secular annulment OR a (local) secular divorce (again: or foreign secular divorce. not sure.). Therefore, poor Filipino Catholics who cannot go abroad to get a secular divorce and then a secular annulment. This unfortunate situation for Filipino Catholics is ironically because the Philippines doesn't have divorce because of Catholic reasons.

But this doesn't matter IF (but not only if I guess) Philippine secular marriage/canon laws accommodate all of Catholic marriage/canon laws. It seems that the former accommodates at least almost all of the latter.

2.1. But still! Even if there's a single unaccommodated case, then there's the question of the poor Filipino Catholics who are invalid church married but valid secular married. I think of Genesis 18:27-33 or 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' (Oh wait, this statement is called 'Blackstone's ratio', and apparently it's a literal, well, ratio. I didn't think the statement was literal. I thought it really meant that I would rather have infinity guilty people go free than one innocent person in prison.)

I'll repeat that the above has an 'ostensibly' attached.

Question 1: In general, how do Catholic marriage laws differ by region?

Eg there's a sufficient condition that makes a Japanese Roman Catholic marriage void/able that doesn't apply to French Roman Catholics or to German Eastern Catholics or whatever.

Eg there's a loophole that allows a Roman Catholic marriage conducted in Argentina to be void/able if the couple seeks an annulment in Scotland, whereas the marriage would've been otherwise 'valid' (as in not necessarily invalid) from the viewpoint of Argentinian diocese or whatever.

Eg the consummation rules are somehow different. (Maybe certain positions don't count in Ireland. IDK.)

If there are a lot, then well I find this insane since we're talking about a single denomination here, but ok, please say a few differences. (eh the lent and holy days of obligation already differ. I don't expect zero differences. I just expect there to be not so many differences.)

I attended a Catholic university in the Philippines, and we were required to take a course that included some canon law stuff like necessary or sufficient conditions for a marriage to be sacramental/consummated/void/able/invalid/whatever. I don't recall there was any mention of the regions to which these were applicable like 'applies to the Philippines but not necessarily to other countries'. I just assumed they were applicable everywhere.

Re canon vs marriage: Okay so the term I seem to be looking for is 'matrimonial law' a subset of 'canon law'. Idk. I just remember from that class that catholic laws related to marriage and stuff are under 'canon law'.

Question 2: How are Catholic marriage laws regionally affected by local laws?

Eg Because of certain laws in South Korea, Catholic marriages have or don't have a certain requirement expected of Catholic marriages elsewhere.

Perhaps age.

Canon law is for rites, not geographical regions.

There is only one Code of Canon Law applicable to the entire Latin Rite; its canons 1055-1165 are on marriage.

Another code is for the Eastern Rites: Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium; its canons 776-866 govern marriage.

However, there are provisions in canon law for local laws, at least in the 1917 Code

Canon 1089: § 1. With due regard for diocesan statutes added to the above…


Format for the Catholic Mass I've been to a Catholic Church very few times in my adult life.  It's a very different experience than the protestant Churches I'm used to.

In most of the Protestant Churches, there is generally a time of singing/praise/worship, followed by some general announcements for members (The Lady's Missionary meeting will be meeting on Monday night at Liz's house, for example), followed by a prayer, then a sermon on a particular topic, more singing, and a prayer.  In most Baptist Churches, there's an altar call just before the final prayer.

The Catholic Church also seems to have a very set format, and it doesn't seem to vary much, but that's probably an outsider's perception.  I'm interested to know what the standard format it, and also, what things are the same every week, and were there is variation.

To give an example, in all the activities in the Protestant Churches I described, each and every one of those activities vary. The sermon is different every week.  The Hymns vary (in our Church they are chosen because the doctrine in the Hymn is directly relevant to the sermon message)  The format stays the same, but the contents seem different.

In the Catholic Church, however, it seems to be much less flexible. I do not mean this to be disrespectful, but it seems that everyone knows when to stand, when to kneel, when to sit, and there's usually a time when the Priest says one thing and everyone else responds in unison.  ("Peace be with you"  - "and also with you" being the easiest to remember.)  I get the impression that this part of the service is the same week after week.

So, in short, could someone post a general format something like:

Opening prayer - varies
Other activity - standard part of the Mass, always part of the Mass, doesn't change

Even better would be each item listed with the correct Catholic terminology with a layman's or potestnt synonym... Like

Eucharist (communion/Lords Supper)

Or if I'm just perceiving things incorrectly, correct my misunderstanding.

I think you're looking for the Order of Mass

But in General, each Catholic Mass is broken up into 4 parts (It's a little different for Sundays and the few Holy Days of Obligation than it is for weekday Masses; more things are optional for weekday Mass)

Introductory Rite

A. Procession in to the Church

B. Greeting

C. Penitential rite (there are a few ways this can be done)

D. Let us pray... (This is the prayer that changes, if you go to weekday mass it usually has something to do with the saint whose feast day it is)
Liturgy of the Word

A. OT reading

B. Psalm

C. NT reading (not Gospel)

D. Alleluia

E. Gospel (usually connected in some way with OT reading)

F. Homily
Liturgy of the Eucharist

A. Creed (Apostles or Nicene)

B. Intercessory prayers

C. Collection and presentation of the gifts ( bread wine and money brought up)

D. Eucharistic Prayer (This is the part that the priest does mostly, but I'll list the parts you'd do if you were at Mass)

i. Great Amen

ii. Acclamation (what the we say after "the mystery of faith")

iii. Our Father

iv. Rite of Peace (hand shake time)

v. Lamb of God (and then you kneel)

vi. Lord I am not worthy...

vii. Eucharist time!
Concluding Rite

A. Prayer

B. Lame Joke (that might just be in the Footville order of Mass)

C. Mass has ended...

D. Process out.

E. Eruption of noise as everyone suddenly forgets they're still in the presence of The Lord.

That's about the gist of it, the order of mass is what is supposed to happen, some things that aren't supposed to happen are pretty normal ( or at least regional) if you want to see how it's supposed to be done head over to the Guadalupe Shrine outside of La Crosse.


Is there an English translation of the Bible that is accepted by most Christians? This question is somewhat related to another about whether Catholics are allowed to read the NIV.  But my question is broader: is there an English translation that most church authorities accept?  I would like to find a translation that won't offend:

Catholic Christians
Eastern Orthodox Christians
Most Protestant Christians

I'm largely familiar with Protestantism and I know that you can't please all of us all of the time, so I'm most concerned with the first two.

I'm prompted to ask this question from a paragraph in the Preface to Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job that states:

  I have elected to use the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible throughout this work. It is the only translation that is universally accepted by all three branches of the Christian faith: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.

Is that true?  He gives no source and Wikipedia indicates that all three branches have serious reservations about the translation.  Would any other translation fit the bill?

The main problem with the NRSV is its attempt at using gender inclusive language when possible, although it is more conservative in this regard than some versions. Otherwise, it is a very scholarly translation that is more literal than some, but still has a good English style. It is available in Catholic editions with all 72 books in the traditional order, as well as Protestant editions, with or without the Apocrypha.

The original RSV also comes in Protestant and Catholic editions, and does not have the issue of gender inclusive language. It does use "thee" and "thou" etc. in prayers, which some people like, and others hate.

My impression in dealings with some Eastern Orthodox is that there is no English translation that entirely lives up to their standards. They would like a translation of the Old Testament taken from the Greek Septuagint, which they consider the Christian version of the OT since it was the most common version used in the early Church. All English Bibles that I know of that are in use today come primarily from the Hebrew OT. The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the New King James Version, with an attempt to change the Old Testament where it contradicted the Septuagint. Also, the Septuagint books that are missing from the Protestant Bible were also added. My understanding is that some Orthodox are not satisfied with the results.

Twelve years ago I attended a Bible study led by the Orthodox Bishop of Dallas, Abp Dmitri, and he used the RSV. This was before the Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament was available.


Is it allowed to deviate from the Catholic Liturgical Calendar during a pilgrimage? Later this year I am helping to lead a Marian pilgrimage. The days we are away are all non-Marian feasts or obligatory memorias. (Following the general Catholic Liturgical  Calendar.)

Is it permissible according to Catholic rules to celebrate votive Marian masses during the pilgrimage in place of the masses of the day?

Under certain conditions, the clergy may employ a votive mass on days where it is permitted in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially on Saturdays. Traditionally, Saturdays are dedicated to Mary.

What is a votive mass?

  Votive Mass

  A Mass offered in honor of some mystery of the faith, or the Blessed Virgin, or of a saint or all the saints, but not in the liturgical calendar for that day. Votive Masses, with some exceptions, may be offered on any ordinary ferial day in the year, outside of Lent and Advent, and on other days that do not require the Mass of the day to be said. In general, votive Masses may be taken from among those listed as votive in the Roman Missal or from any other Mass of the year.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 376, has this a say about votive masses:

  "On obligatory memorials, on the weekdays of Advent up to and including December 16, of the Christmas Season from January 2, and of the Easter Season after the Octave of Easter, Masses for Various Needs, Masses for Various Circumstances, and Votive Masses are as such forbidden. If, however, required by some real need or pastoral advantage, according to the judgment of the rector (pastor) of the church or the priest celebrant himself, a Mass corresponding to such a need or advantage may be used in a celebration with a congregation."

But that is not all. The Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, published a Collection of 46 Marian Masses in 1986. Some of these masses are permitted to be celebrated in Advent, Easter and Lent.

  The Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, published by the Congregation of Divine Worship in 1986, is a set of forty-six Masses intended for use at Marian shrines and for communities who wish to celebrate the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin on Saturday. Originally published in two volumes, a Missal (Sacramentary) and a Lectionary, its status as an official liturgical book confers an authority both on the individual Masses as well as the principles contained in the General Introduction.

  The forty-six Masses are arranged according to the divisions of the liturgical year: Advent (three), Christmas (six), Lent (five), Easter (four), and Ordinary Time (twenty-eight). The Advent season celebrates "the two comings of the Lord: the first in lowliness when ... the Lord took flesh of the Virgin Mary ... and the second in glory, when ... the Lord will come to judge the living and dead and to lead the just ... where Mary has preceded them in glory." During Lent, Mary is "the model of the disciple who faithfully listens to the word of God and follows the footsteps of Christ to Calvary ...." - Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


How do Catholics explain the fact that Jesus is male yet he has no human biological father? Science states that the mother contributes an X chromosome, while the father contributes either an X or a Y chromosome. If the father contributes a Y chromosome, the fetus will develop into a male (excluding anomalies); if the father contributes an X chromosome, the fetus will develop into a female (excluding anomalies).

According to Wikipedia’s entry on “XY sex-determination system,” it states,

  In humans and many other species of animals, the father determines the sex of the child. In the XY sex-determination sys[tem, the father contr]ibutes either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome, resulting in female (XX) or male (XY) offspring, respectively.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ had no human biological father, how is the determination of his male gender explained by Catholic apologists?

Edit: If you watch this YouTube video, @2:57, you will see that Tim Staples (from Catholic Answers) offers some speculation on the subject, but does not go any further. I am curious if there are some Catholic apologists who have actually discussed the matter in depth.

The Catholic Church has no official position on this, since it is of minor importance (albeit an interesting problem).

The consensus of theologians who have studied the problem (Catholic and non-Catholic, who hold the Church’s firm belief in the Virgin Birth and the maleness of Jesus) is that, presumably, the genetic material for Jesus’s paternal complement of DNA was created miraculously.

This is likely to be the case, because the result of a parthenogenesis (viable parthenogenesis is extremely rare, if not nonexistent, in humans) would be a woman, not a man.

Moreover, it is unlikely that any of Mary’s DNA was simply “duplicated” in order to fill out any part Jesus’ paternal complement: generally, when maternal DNA is accidentally duplicated (even when there are no “extra” chromosomes), there are grave birth defects due to a phenomenon called genomic imprinting.

The fact that the Son was conceived as a healthy man would, therefore, be further confirmation of the miraculousness of Jesus’ conception and birth.

(For a decent overview of various positions, see http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lifestyle/ci_3207769. Note that the article represents a diversity of opinions, some of which are not compatible with orthodox belief in the Virgin Birth. Among those cited in the article, David Wilcox and Ronald Cole-Turner uphold the Virgin Birth; Wesley Wildman does not.1)

Some apologists, such as Tim Staples, mentioned by the O.P., would argue that all of the genetic material came from Mary (presumably with some kind of miraculous transformation that would account for the maleness and lack of problems caused by genomic imprinting, although he does not address this issue in the video).

1
Also, the article misrepresents the reason for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: it has nothing to do with the supposed evilness of male seed—after all, Mary herself was conceived by a normal sexual act—but stems from the belief that Mary, in view of her divine motherhood, is all holy (panagia), and hence is exempt even from the effects of Original Sin.


What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account? Exodus 12:37-38 says that the Israelites numbered about 600,000 men besides women and children (plus non-Israelites and livestock). Numbers 1 gives a similar total. This means there would have been around 3.5 million people. There is little to no archaeological nor practical support for this claim.

What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account? I'm not looking for any particular stance, pro or con. I will gladly entertain convincing arguments demonstrating this as scriptural error or showing a reasonable explanation for it (or whatever other options exist).

At the time of Nero Egypt had 7.5 million men:

  This country is extended as far as the Ethiopians, and Arabia the Happy, and borders upon India; it hath seven million five hundred thousand men, besides the inhabitants of Alexandria, as may be learned from the revenue of the poll tax; yet it is not ashamed to submit to the Roman government, although it hath Alexandria as a grand temptation to a revolt, by reason it is so full of people and of riches, and is besides exceeding large (Works of Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.385)

As far as I know there is not any historical record of any census done in Egypt at the time of Thutmose II (around 1500 B.C.), which is the time we are probably speaking about.  Those who do try to 'guess' at ancient Egyptian populations do so based on “estimates of cultivated area and yields” of the land (a).  In other words how much land did they seem to occupy and how well would that land have supported a population.  Different people make different guesses with a range of around four million variance.

Now as we have a record of 600,000 men leaving Egypt and just for the sake of argument we estimate the 7.5 million Egyptian men were ¼ of its size at that time (for this is really only guess work anyway) we would have around 2 million men. For the sake of skepticism we reduced this some more to around 1.5 million men 1500 years before Nero, then still the Egyptians would still outnumber Israel.

In any case it would seem that Egypt had more men than Israel at any time in the guesses and when we consider what the scripture says as to why the Pharaoh began to deal cruelly with the Jews, it seems that the number 600,000 makes a lot of sense:

  Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. 7 But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. (Exodus 1:6-9)

It seems that the men of Israel were starting to compete with the numbers of Egyptians so that Pharaoh was worried they would overtake them.  Therefore the number 600,000 seems realistic and there is no apparent exaggeration from my point of view.

If I were trying to reconstruct the population of Egypt at the time of Moses I would not bother with supposed "land yields" (this is a sketchy science at best) but just start with a reliable figure like 600,000 Jews. Then I would make a rough guess on the biblical description that the Egyptians were 1.5 to 3.0 times that (900,000 - 1,800,000). Then we would be saying from 1500 B.C. to 30 A.D. the population grew from around (1.5 - 2.4) million to 7.5 million.  There is nothing surprising or unrealistic about this sort of growth at all. If there is supposedly someone who thinks they can with confidence calculate different numbers, I would like to see the calculation and review the assumption they have made.  I am confident anybody could easily find huge holes in them.

(a) Life of the Ancient Egyptians by Eugen Strouhal, Deryck Viney, Werner Forman and Geoffrey T. Martin (Nov 15, 1992) Page 134.


Can Christians handle rattlesnakes? Possible Duplicate:
  The effect of poison on Christians

How should I understand the following verse?

  Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they
  drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place
  their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Some context.

I'd answer this exactly the same as I did the other similar question:

Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such "gifts" are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.

In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.

With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to "prove Himself".  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?

A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.

Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)

Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4)

That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups that so many people love to make fun of.

As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?