Is one's predestination influenced by one's parents? This question regards the reformed doctrine of predestination.

Predestination states that God, even before the child has been born, decides whether the child is saved.

Is there any biblical evidence as to whether this decision is dependent upon the actions of the parent? [I.e. God chooses to give zealous parents a saved child; and parents that he doesn't like very much an unsaved child]?

This response addresses the question from a Reformed perspective, informed by concepts such as monergistic regeneration and sola gratia.

The Westminster Assembly, in the Confession (quoted below), taught that the elect were chosen by God "before the foundations of the earth."

Regarding your question as to God's choice of the elect & the sins of the parents, I'm tempted to simply say, "No -- God doesn't/didn't choose the elect depending on any parents' sin, or the sin of anyone at all, for that matter." (Bear in mind the doctrinal framework that is being used for this response, as noted above).

But, then, we don't actually know how God chose the elect.* All of the references I've ever read have been similar to what was provided by the Westminster Assembly: that God made his decision of who to elect "according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will" (WCF 3.5).

But then, again, when it comes to the idea of choosing the elect based on parents' righteousness or sinfulness, we have verses such as the following:

God is not, nor has he ever been a "respecter of persons." That is to say, he's not impressed, and he doesn't "play favorites." (Rom 2:11, Acts 10:34, etc.).
Everyone is guilty in his sight (Rom 3:23), and all of our righteousness is like "filthy rags" (Isa 63); even the angels aren't good enough (Job 4:18), and rightfully so, because God is surpassingly holy, so much so that sin cannot even enter his sight (Habakkuk 1:13 & many more).

(I was thinking of working in an Ezekiel 18 reference, but that's a complex chapter, especially when one tries to reconcile it with Exodus 20, the doctrine of original sin, etc.).

So, before this response becomes more disjointed, I think I'm simply going to segue to the Westminster Confession with the quote that follows. It may help to get further research started.

* Note: Several groups throughout history have offered variations on the idea that God elected the people that he "foreknew" would choose him. And that interpretation, and the associated verse from Paul, has been at the heart of disputes for centuries. Many groups still believe that interpretation, and many don't; the Reformed doctrines are in the latter camp.

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter three, article five:

  Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,(9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;(10) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(11) (emphasis added)

Here are the scripture proofs, referenced in the original:

(9)

Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
Ephesians 1:9, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself"
Ephesians 1:11, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."
Romans 8:30, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
2 Timothy 1:9, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
1 Thessalonians 5:9, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ."

(10)

Romans 9:11, "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"
Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."
Ephesians 1:9, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself."

(11)

Ephesians 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Ephesians 1:12, "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."


Was Elohim the Saviour and Redeemer of his world? According to Mormon doctrine, God the Father (Elohim), once lived a mortal life.

  “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”  ( The
  Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

Years ago I remember being told that God the Father did not live simply as another man, but that he was in fact the Saviour and Redeemer of his world, much as Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of ours. He lived a sinless life, like Christ, and suffered for the sins of all his brothers and sisters.

I confess that I've never bothered to look into the sources behind this claim, but now I'm wondering, who said this? Which church leader is credited with revealing this?

I'm not necessarily asking for a canonical LDS source, I just want to know where this claim comes from, be it Journal of Discourses, a letter, hear-say, or wherever.

This idea actually dates all the way back to Joseph Smith.  I've been able to find a couple different quotes from him that touch on the subject, from a couple different sermons he gave:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373


Why was Jesus afraid/agonizing in the Garden of Gethsemane if the Spirit of God isn't one of fear but of power? The scene of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane has confused me for a time. How could Jesus be overcome with fear or anguish or what-have-you when his Spirit is one of power and self-control, not of fear?

Luke 22:42-44 ESV  “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
2 Timothy 1:7 ESV for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Could it be that Jesus was not actually afraid, but anguish means something else? Other translations, actually most, say he was in agony or "in agony of spirit". What is an overview of doctrinal opinions on this?

We can identify several views regarding the suffering of Jesus.  (1) That he did feel fear and grief, but did not sin.  (2) That he did not feel fear, per se, but did feel grief.  Within (2), there are differing understandings of why Jesus felt grief and agony.  Those who (a) accept penal substitution will argue that he was suffering on behalf of his people, while others (b) say that his suffering was due to people's sin and their rejection of him.
He did feel fear
Some argue that Christ felt fear, but that he did not thereby sin.  For example, John Calvin:

[W]hen Christ was distressed by grief and fear, he did not rise against God, but continued to be regulated by the true rule of moderation. [...] Let us, therefore, attend to this distinction, that Christ, amidst fear and sadness, was weak without any taint of sin; but that all our affections are sinful, because they rise to an extravagant height.

Calvin saw two reasons for Christ's fear: the wrath of God against sin, and the physical suffering and death of the cross. Quoting Cyril,

[Jesus] allows the flesh to feel what belongs to it, and, therefore, being truly a man, he trembles at death, when it is now at the door.

Regarding 2 Timothy 1:7, Calvin argues that the command there is against cowardice, not against the feeling of fear:

[H]ere he speaks particularly about ministers, and exhorts them, in the person of Timothy, to arouse themselves actively to deeds of valor; because God does not wish them to perform their office in a cold and lifeless manner, but to press forward powerfully, relying on the efficacy of the Spirit.

He felt only grief, not fear
In this camp we begin with (a) those who hold to penal substitution, like Adam Clarke, a Methodist (Arminian).  He is more uncomfortable than Calvin with the idea of Jesus being "afraid" of death:

To say that all this was occasioned by the fear he had of the ignominious death which he was about to die confutes itself – for this would not only rob him of his divinity, for which purpose it is brought, but it deprives him of all excellency, and even of manhood itself.

Instead, he suffered agony and distress because it was necessary to bring mankind to God:

His agony and distress can receive no consistent explication but on this ground – He Suffered, the Just for the Unjust, that he might Bring us to God. O glorious truth! O infinitely meritorious suffering!

Like Calvin, Clarke understands this suffering in Gethsemane in the context of the doctrine of penal substitution, which holds that Christ suffered God's wrath on behalf of his people, as summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism (Answer 37):

[D]uring his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.

Those who (b) reject penal substitution include Roman Catholics like Haydock.  He holds that Jesus's grief here was not due to fear, but to the sin and rejection of men.  He quotes Jerome's explanation:

The cause of our Lord's grief was not the fear of suffering; since he took upon himself human nature, to suffer and to die for us; but the cause of his grief was the unhappy state of Judas, the scandal his disciples would take at his passion, the reprobation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of the miserable Jerusalem. Our Lord also suffered himself to be thus dejected, to convince the world of the truth and reality of his human nature.

Here, the grief is seen as a human response to sin, and as something necessary to show his human nature, but not an example of him bearing God's wrath against sin.

Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels
Calvin, Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Clarke, Commentary
Haydock, Commentary
Heidelberg Catechism


St. Albans Psalter - history of manuscripts used to translate the Psalms Recently I had cause to do research into the St. Albans Psalter.  My task was to ascertain if the Latin translation of the Psalms was biblical and to establish which manuscripts formed the basis for this particular Psalter when it was later translated into English.  I found an interesting Wikipedia article on the history of the St. Albans Psalter but there was no information about the original manuscripts used in the translation of the Psalms.  Here is a partial quote:

The St Albans Psalter, also known as the Albani Psalter or the Psalter of Christina of Markyate, is an English illuminated manuscript, one of several psalters known to have been created at or for St Albans Abbey in the 12th century.  It is widely considered to be one of the most important examples of English Romanesque book production; it is of almost unprecedented lavishness of decoration, with over forty full-page miniatures, and contains a number of iconographic innovations that would endure throughout the Middle Ages. It also contains the earliest surviving example of French literature, the Chanson de St Alexis or Vie de St Alexis, and it was probably commissioned by an identifiable man and owned by an identifiable woman. - St. Albans Psalter (Wikipedia)

The only Psalter I am familiar with is the metrical Scottish Psalter, the 1650 version (based on the King James Bible) as approved by the Church of Scotland.  It contains only the Psalms and, in the Free Church of Scotland, there is no musical accompaniment.
Obviously, the Psalms were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Latin and the St. Albans Psalter was written in Latin.  Later, it was translated into English.  But which English Bible translation was used?  I understand that the English version of this Psalter is still used today.  My interest is focused on the translation of the Psalms in the St. Albans Psalter from Latin into English.
I would like (if possible) to track the history of the manuscripts used that led up to the English translation of the Psalms in the St. Albans Psalter.  This question is open to Catholics and Anglicans in particular and to Bible scholars in general.

The St Albans Psalter is a unique individual  volume containing the psalms, bound together with some other material. Strictly speaking "psalter" means a copy of the psalms, but is often used to refer to books containing the psalms and other things, in the same way as a "bible" may contain the bible and other material e.g. maps.
The St Albans Psalter was not a new Latin translation of the psalms. The Latin text of the psalms is simply the standard text used in most of Western Europe, though not Rome,at the time. This is known as the Gallican text.
Jochen Bepler, Peter Kidd and Jane Geddes have published avery informative paper called          The Albani Psalter.  It includes the following explanation of the origins of the Gallican text.

From the fifth century three  versions  of  the  Psalms  predominated.  The  version  that  is  now  known  as  the ‘Romanum’ was traditionally thought to be the work of St Jerome, but this is now doubted. He was certainly responsible for three versions of the Psalms, but the first only survives as snippets quoted in other works. After this he produced what is now known as the ‘Gallicanum’ version, which he based on Greek texts (which had them-selves  been  derived  from  Hebrew).  And  finally  he  produced  a  translation  based directly on Hebrew manuscripts, the ‘Hebraicum’ version. The  Romanum  version  of  the  Psalms  was  widely  used  in  Europe  until  the  ninthcentury, and continued in use in Italy until the sixteenth century; it is still used in thebasilicas  of  the  Vatican  and  San  Marco,  Venice.  It  was  also  used  in  English  churches until  the  late  tenth  or  early  eleventh  century.  The  Gallicanum  version  of  the  Psalms became especially popular in Gaul (hence the name), and was adopted for liturgical use, superseding the Romanum version in most places from the ninth century onwards. This is  the  version  that  appears  in  the  ‘Vulgate’  version  of  the  whole  Bible,  found  in  mostmanuscript and printed Latin Bibles from the thirteenth to the twentieth century. The Hebraicum version of the Psalms never found very wide favour, because it was too different from the versions which were already very well known and well established, butit is occasionally found in manuscripts with double or triple versions laid out in parallel columns alongside one or both of the other versions for comparative purposes

Jerome translated what became known as the Gallican from the Greek Septuagint, which in turn was a translation from the Hebrew into Greek.
The scribes who produced the Albani psalms merely copied from other copies. There was no thought of producing a new translation.
I am not aware of the St Alban's psalter, the physical book, per se, being translated into English and still being used today. Miles Coverdale made a translation from the Latin Gallican text into English in the 1530s. In doing this he simply translated from Latin to English. Coverdale's translation can therefore be considered a translation from the text used in the St Alban's Psalter.
Coverdale's psalms were included in the first Book of Common Prayer, in 1549. The 1662 edition replaced all Scripture quotations with those in the King James Bible, with the exception of the psalms. It had been intended to replace the psalms too, but this was objected to because people knew the Coverdale versions, particularly important for congregational singing in an age of linmited literacy. Coverdale's are generally also thought more rhythmical.
Even today the psalms in the Book of Common Prayer are still Coverdale's, and are still used in the Church of England, most commonly at Evensong, though modern versions are authorised as an alternative.
There is no doubt that the KJV, produced by a team of scholars translating from the Hebrew, is much more accurate than the BCP translated by one man from a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew.
In the days before football rivalry the English could boast that they chanted the exact words of the psalms whereas the Scots, by using metrical adaptations, were less Bibllical. The Scots on the other hand pointed out that their metrical versions were based on a much more acccurate translation.


What is the Catholic stance against In Vitro Fertilization? I was researching a different question and saw that some people find that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is something that should be avoided on the basis of religious grounds.

Does anyone know what these reasons are?  I'd like to know if these religious arguments against IVF are biblically based.  If so, what passages do they use to support this argument?

(This seems especially strange to me since pregnancy wasn't fully understood back then, let alone IVF.)

Specifically, I would like the Catholic stance on this.

Read article 4 of Humane Vitae for the biblical basis for the Catholic Church interpreting the moral law.

Then Evangelium Vitae may begin to make sense.

  This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically "produced" for this purpose by in vitro fertilization-either to be used as "biological material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.

Given the sanctity of every human person, known before they were formed in their mother's womb, the secondary effects of in vitro fertilization certainly fall under "Thou Shall not Kill".

The rest of course falls under the natural moral law as gmoothart says, which is, you ask "where ought a person be conceived" and the answer is "whereever the egg is hanging out during the marital act".


When do catechumens go to confession? I thought I'd answer a question asked here about non-Catholics receiving the sacrament of reconciliation by using the RCIA book, but in skimming all the steps, there doesn't seem to be much said about confession, I know it's unnecessary for the unbaptized, but don't baptized Christians preparing to be in full communion with the Church have to go to confession first?

Catechumens do not go to confession before reception into the Catholic Church, you were thinking of "candidates for reception" as outlined in Chapter 5 of the RCIA.

Candidates for reception are baptized Christians who express their wish to make a full profession of faith and be received fully into the Catholic Church.

As for their confession,

  If the profession of faith and reception take place within Mass, the candidate, according to his or her own conscience, should make a confession of sins beforehand, first informing the confessor that he or she is about to be received into full communion. Any confessor who is lawfully approved may hear the candidates confession.

So, now you can go answer that other question with some impressive minutiae! Go get 'em tiger.


Do any Christian groups regularly practice the "lifting up of holy hands" during prayer? I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy
  hands without anger or quarreling  (1 Timothy 2:8)

Are there any groups in Christian circles that take the part about "lifting holy hands" as an admonition or command for how to pray, and therefore practice this regularly?
If so, do they also make a distinction between men and women doing so (by the fact that the first part of the verse may be seen as being addressed directly to the men)?
And finally, is it known whether lifting hands during prayer was just a common tradition at the time Paul wrote to Timothy, in which case the emphasis might not have been on the "lifting hands" part, but more on the "holy...without anger or quarreling" part?

Many Christian groups practice this.  It's quite common. So much so, that it's considered ordinary among many groups.  It's especially common in Charismatic groups, but it's also found in more conservative groups such as Baptists.

From Joyful Heart Ministries:

  To classic Pentecostals lifting the hands in praise and prayer is
  second nature, flowing from a tradition decades old. But to the new
  convert or non-Pentecostal just entering the Charismatic movement, the
  custom may be new and awkward. Most traditional Protestants have only
  seen the minister lift his hands to give the benediction or blessing
  upon the people. Questions follow: Why lift hands to worship and pray?
  What does this practice mean? As we explore the twenty-eight verses in
  the Bible on this subject we will find answers to these questions.

And later on in the article:

  Lifted hands must not mask sin. Worship offered to God while still
  practicing iniquity is an abomination (cf. Ps 40:6-8; 50:7-23;
  51:16-19; Is 1:11-18). Defiled lives must be cleansed by repentance:
  "When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even
  though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full
  of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean ...." (Isaiah
  1:15-16; cf. 59:1-3). R*ather we are to lift up "holy hands without
  anger or quarreling" (1 Timothy 2:8).* The prophet Jeremiah admonishes
  the Israelites mourning the destruction of Jerusalem, "Let us search
  and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord! Let us lift up our
  hearts with our hands to God in the heavens" (Lamentations 3:40-41,
  KJV).

A typical search on a major search engine will list thousands of results for anyone wishing to learn more.


What does it mean that Jesus was the "second Adam"? I often hear Jesus referred to as the "second Adam" or sometimes as the "last Adam". What meaning does this title carry? Does it mean that things didn't work out so well for Adam and so God had to try again?

I can't find a verse that uses "second Adam", but this verse mentions the "last Adam":

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)
  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Is this talking about Adam? Where else is this address used and why is it important?

1 Cor. 15:22, 45

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . .
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

The specific reference is to obedience; The first Adam was the father of all men through the Flesh and disobeyed, and through him all of his progeny learned disobedience and inherited death, whereas the 'second' or 'last' Adam becomes the father of all men through the Spirit, and was perfect in obedience. Through him, all his progeny learn to be obedient to the will of God and inherit life.
See also, related:
Romans 5:12-21 NIV

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe 'The Second Adam' is an interpolation, i.e, a term that is not explicitly in the scripture like 'Trinity' but enjoys common usage because of its descriptive faculty.


What are the traditional reasons ascribed to why God saw it fit that Jesus be born of a virgin? According to the early church fathers, why did God decide that Jesus would be born of a virgin? I would imagine that someone like Augustine would say that it has something to do with why he is unstained from original sin, but the Bible does not explicitly say this. What are some of the early interpretations?

In the Catholic Encyclopedia you can find a thorough historical and theological analysis (up until 1912 at least) of the development of the virgin birth doctrine/belief, including a list of early church fathers that wrote on the topic. The list is (for links to authors/text, see website):

St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).
St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

In effect, several sects and individuals arose in the first centuries denying the virginal birth of Jesus. For example, (some of the) Ebionites and Cerinthus. Against them wrote the early father St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Against heresies (the first on in the list above). In Chapter 21 of Book III, for example, he states (emphasis mine):

But what Isaiah said, "From the height above, or from the depth beneath," Isaiah 7:11 was meant to indicate, that "He who descended was the same also who ascended." Ephesians 4:10 But in this that he said, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign," he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth — a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.

Later on, he says (emphasis mine):

And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground" Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

Although not an Early Church father, St. Thomas Aquinas deals with this very directly in his Summa Theologicae, quoting Agustine in a few paragraphs:

It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a virgin. First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father Who sent Him. For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting that He should have another father than God: lest the dignity belonging to God be transferred to another.
Secondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is sent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived without any interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word. Since therefore flesh was so assumed by the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it was fitting that it also should be conceived without corruption of the mother.
Thirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in which there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the world was taken away, according to John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God" (i.e. the Lamb without stain) "who taketh away the sin of the world." Now it was not possible in a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin. Whence Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "In that union," viz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, "the nuptial intercourse alone was lacking: because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He wished to be conceived, Who was to be without sin."
Fourthly, on account of the very end of Incarnation of Christ, which was that men might be born again as sons of God, "not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13), i.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg.): "It behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be born, after the flesh, of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church."


Why does Christmas end on the Baptism of the Lord and not on the Presentation of the Lord? The Presentation of the Lord is celebrated exactly 40 days after Christmas, yet Christmas ends on the Baptism of the Lord, which is the beginning of Ordinary Time.

Why is the Christmas season short when compared to the Easter season, which is celebrated for 50 days? How was it decided that the day celebrating the Lord's baptism marked the end of Christmas?

Why does Christmas end on the Baptism of the Lord and not on the Presentation of the Lord?

The Christmas season still ends on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord. Some so called liturgical calendars seem to state that it ends with the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, but this is not congruent with the Church's sacred tradition.

The Christmas Season starts with First Vespers of the Nativity of the Lord and continues with a holy joy until the 2nd Vespers of the feast of the presentation of the Lord (February 2nd).The celebration of a 40 day season for Christmas goes so far back into antiquity that it is impossible to know at what point in time it became a tradition. The Feast of the Presentation was established as a feast on this date at least by the 6th century. Mary was obliged by Jewish law to present Our Lord to the Lord 40 days after his birth, thus bringing the joys of Christmas to a natural conclusion.

  Until 1969, the ancient Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, which is of Oriental origin, was known in the West as the feast of the Purification of Our Lady, and closed the Christmas season, forty days after the Lord's birth.- Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (120) of the Vatican Website.

Traditionally speaking, our Christmas trees should go up on Christmas Eve and brought down on the Feast of the Epiphany with the arrival of the Magi with their gifts of gold ,frankincense and myrrh. On this day the three wise men are added to our manger scenes! In Europe, the Christmas Crèches are only taken down on February 2nd.

Here is what Dom Gueranger has to say on this subject:

  We apply the name of Christmas to the forty days which begin with the Nativity of our Lord, December 25, and end with the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, February 2. It is a period which forms a distinct portion of the Liturgical Year, as distinct, by its own special spirit, from every other, as are Advent, Lent, Easter, or Pentecost. One same Mystery is celebrated and kept in view during the whole forty days. Neither the Feasts of the Saints, which so abound during this Season; nor the time of Septuagesima, with its mournful Purple, which often begins before Christmastide is over, seem able to distract our Holy Mother the Church from the immense joy of which she received the good tidings from the Angels [St Luke ii 10] on that glorious Night for which the world had been longing four thousand years. The Faithful will remember that the Liturgy commemorates this long expectation by the four penitential weeks of Advent.

  The custom of celebrating the Solemnity of our Savior's Nativity by a feast or commemoration of forty days’ duration is founded on the holy Gospel itself; for it tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, after spending forty days in the contemplation of the Divine Fruit of her glorious Maternity, went to the Temple, there to fulfill, in most perfect humility, the ceremonies which the Law demanded of the daughters of Israel, when they became mothers.

Besides, who has ever known of a joyous liturgical season (Christmas) being shorter than the season of preparation and joyful penance. Please recall that in some regions, Advent is six weeks long, not four like ours.

  Unlike the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite celebrates six Sundays of Advent (beginning with the Sunday after St. Martin’s Day) with proper epistle and gospel readings. These six Sundays were marked by seven Prefaces altogether: one for each of the first five, with two assigned to the Sixth Sunday of Advent. - Ambrosian Preface Texts for Celebrating Advent

If a table of comparision between the Ordinary Rite and the Extraordinary Rite would interest you, the following may be informative:

Christmas to Candlemas: When is the Real End of the Christmas Season?

The liturgical seasons of the Ordinary Form (OF) and the 1962 Extraordinary Form Calendar (EF)

Although there are several differences between the current General Roman Calendar (OF) and the 1962 Extraordinary Form Calendar (EF), the structure of both of the liturgical seasons is still very similar. Christmastide is not another name for the Christmas season, which extends from Christmas Eve until the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Christmastide in the Extraordinary Form (EF) extended from Christmas Eve until the Feast of the Epiphany (January 6). For on this feast three miracles took place: Catholic tradition holds that on this day the Magi come to visit Jesus, that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan and that Jesus performed his first  miracle. Liturgical books of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V call the time following the Epiphany the Time after the Epiphany which is still remained encompassed in the Christmas season of 40 days.

The 1960 Code of Rubrics defined "Christmastide" as running "from I vespers of Christmas to none of 5th of January inclusive.

  Closely connected with the salvific events of the Epiphany are the mysteries of the Baptism of the Lord and the manifestation of his glory at the marriage feast of Cana.

  Christmastide closes with the Baptism of the Lord. Only in recent times has the feast been rehabilitated, and hence has not given rise to any particular displays of popular piety. However, the feast presents an excellent opportunity for the faithful to be reminded of their rebirth as children of God in Baptism. The rite of asperges could be opportunely used at all Masses on this day, and homilies could well concentrate on the symbols associated with Baptism. - Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (119) of the Vatican Website.

Epiphanytide is a whole different subject yet closely related to Christmastide because it follows it.


Does God tempt Abraham in Genesis 22:1? In James 1:13 it says:

  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But in Genesis 22:1 it is written:

  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

So did God actually tempt Abraham or not?

No, God does not.
In hebrew the word there is נָסָה the KJV translates it as "tempt", but strong's translates it as "to test". In fact if you check out other translations you'll find thats how they translate it as well.
So what was God doing in Genesis 22? Was he tempting Abraham or testing him? Reading on in the chapter God makes it clear.

2 “Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and
go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on
one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
...
12 “Don’t lay a hand on
the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know
that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son,
your only son.”

God was testing Abraham to see if he feared Him. And because of Abraham's obedience and faith he was blessed and so were we.


According to the Church of God (Cleveland), are children sin-free? I work with children in a day care that is part of the Church of God.  Naturally, all of the employees except me are of the Church of God, which is fine by me.  I am non-denom.  I find it curious that one of my co-workers stated that the children in my toddlers and twos class are "sin-free."  I feel a bit odd asking anyone there about it since they are all COG.  I don't understand how a human born of Adam and fallen short of the glory of God could be free from sin.  I understand there is an age of accountability around 12 or 13, but does the COG teach that young children are "sin-free"?

The Church of God by Faith (not sure if there is a distinction like there is between Churches of Christ) does officially hold to original sin. However, many individual members of all denominations have *'s on that doctrine, if not outright reject it. One of the *'s being  an age of accountability that you mentioned, before which salvation is given without formal repentance, baptism, and so on depending on denomination. For example, many hold that an aborted baby would go to heaven irrespective of the guilt they believe comes by way of original sin.

(As an addition, the doctrine of original sin doesn't come from passages about or addressing the theology of the actual original sin of Adam and Eve. Rather it comes from passages that are poetic in form and are in the context of repenting in extremely serious circumstances. I.E. Psalm 51, where David has been convicted of adultery and murder and is about to face strong consequences. As such, the doctrine of guilt at birth is justifiably debated among believers).


Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God”? I believe Jesus Christ is God and that He is also called God in the Bible.  Hebrews 1:8 is always my first choice as the proof of this. Heb. 1:8 says,

  "But unto the Son He saith, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.'" (KJV)

But when I looked it up online, I see a unitarian disagrees with me.  You can find his article here.

The unitarian counters: "Verse 8 clarifies that Psalm 45:6 and 7 are a Messianic prophecy, but the translators once again mis-capitalize “god” as “God.” But look at verse 9! It says, “…therefore God, even your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Say, if one is God, how can anyone else be his “God”? That should be a more frequently asked question!"

This answer to Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God? addresses your question, but now the verses are included for reference below and the idea of Jesus as Lord (Kyrios) which is equal to God is discussed.

There are 7 instances where the Jesus is called God (Theos) in the New Testament, which are in John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, and 2 Peter 1:1.

  John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
  John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
  John 20:28 "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
  Romans 9:5 "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
  Titus 2:13 "Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
  Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,    the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"
  2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Also noteworthy is that Jesus is called Lord (Kyrios or Kurios) over 500 times in the New Testament, which is how both YHWH and Adonai were translated in the Old Testament into the Septuagint >100 years before Jesus came. Elohim is translated as Theos. There are multiple instances even in the New Testament where Kyrios is used to refer to God, such as the quotations that Jesus uses in Matthew 4 against Satan:

  Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord  (Kyrios) your God (Theos) to the test.’”
  Matthew 4:10 "...You shall worship the Lord (Kyrios) your God (Theos)and him only shall you serve."

So when you account for Jesus being called Lord, you could perhaps say that the Bible calls Jesus (equal to) God explicitly over 500 times.

Edit: the link in the question has a video that mentions how kyrios is also used in several other places in the NT to mean something much less substantial than "God." He mentioned 21 references specifically; 11 of them (over half), ironically enough, are used in parables which Jesus is using an owner/master/lord (kyrios) to represent God. He does make a good point though, that kyrios applies beyond just God or Jesus. However, we can't ignore the significance of the fact that the translations of LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai) are both now Kyrios in the Greek Septuagint. It's probably also worth noting that capitalization was nonexistent in the autographs (original manuscripts) of either the Old or New Testament, as unicals (all capital letters) were the norm. For the NT, minuscules began becoming more popular around 4th-5th century I believe.

Finally, not only is Jesus Lord (Kyrios) and God (Theos), He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Kyrios Kyrion)! These terms are applied to Jesus in 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:16.

Additional resources:

"The Trinity" chapter in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman


Which Reformation theologians used the analogy of water and ink for sin? On page 98 of Miroslav Volf's Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving, he says:

  But even if all of us are sinners from head to toe, none of us is a
  sinner through and through, with nothing good remaining in us. As
  sinners, we are still God's good creatures. To illustrate the
  relationship between being a good creature and being a sinner,
  Reformation theologians used the analogy of water and ink. Water is
  the good creation, ink is sin, and the sinner is a glass of water with
  a few drops of ink. All the water in the glass is tainted, but it's
  still mostly water, not ink. Analogously, all our good deeds are
  marred by sin, but they are still mostly good deeds, not crimes
  masquerading as merits. Now apply this to gifts. We give gifts. None
  of them are pure. Yet with all their impurities, many of them are
  still genuine gifts, not just hidden ways of loving ourselves.

There is no footnote. Who is Volf most likely referring to? What is the original context(s)?

Expanding the search a bit to account for polluting agents other than ink, the closest I can find in Calvin is in his commentary on Isaiah 1, referring to the line in v. 22 that he translates as "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water".

Even here though, the sense is not the same as what Volf is going for; Calvin says that the image is one of hypocrisy:

  The comparisons here employed are exceedingly well adapted to this end, for dross bears some resemblance to gold; and in like manner, the color of wine mixed with water resembles that of pure wine; and yet both are very far from having that purity of which they make an outward show. In like manner hypocrites, by their hypocrisy, may be said to assume a false color of silver, though they are of no more value than dross.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses think there is an important difference between saying 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'? As the denomination's name implies, Jehovah's Witnesses place importance on the name Jehovah. Do they distinguish between Jehovah, Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton, and so on, or do they think these are all acceptable versions of God's name? Also, is there any emphasis placed on how to pronounce 'Jehovah', or is the pronunciation considered non-essential?

Jehovah's Witnesses use whatever form of God's name that is common to Bibles in each language. In modern Hebrew, Jehovah's Witnesses use the "Yahweh" pronunciation. In English, the most common pronunciation is Jehovah. This pronunciation has been used for centuries in English and can be traced back to the Tyndale Bible, the first Bible in English to use Jehovah ("Iehouah") as God's name. "Jehovah" was also popularized by the King James Version, where it uses the name at Psalm 83:18, as well as in a few other scriptures. (But in many modern versions of the KJV, it is now removed there also.)
If someone uses the pronunciation of God's name from another language, we will not think that it's necessarily wrong, but it will sound weird. It's important to be consistent so that we can form a personal connection with that name and the Person that it represents.


Does God need/demand humans' faith for them to be saved? If so, why? According to soteriologies (e.g. Arminianism) that require humans to make a decision to come to God, why is that the case?  What does God gain from faith?

Put another way, why does he require a violitional act of choosing God, rather than simply unilaterially saving humans from their fate?

One has to argue the premise - God doesn't necessarily need faith, he might just want it.

A truly compassionate and loving God who understands his people, may simply desire what is best for them. If God is the best, then it would be His desire that his people come to him- willingly and without coercion.

As an analogy, a father may understand that his children learn the value of money. That would entail getting the child's attention, showing correct courses of action, and rewarding desired / punishing undesired behavior. But, before any of this training can occur, the child must first believe that the parent knows how best to deal with money.  Without that implicit faith, nothing can be taught.

Likewise, God demands faith (1) in order that he might help his children to be better.(2)

  (1) Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him

  (2) Heb 12:6 - 10 the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
     and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness

Yes, it does sound a little bit like an old Army ad, but its true: God wants you to be all you can be.

In order to accomplish that, however, one must choose (via free will) that God is in fact the best authority you can emulate.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, does Jesus make the same claim as God, that he is the "first and the last,"? Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

But Jesus Christ makes the same claim in Revelation:

  Revelation 1:8: I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

  Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."

  Revelation 21:5-6: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold I am making all things new." And He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and Omega."

The point or the scope of my question has to do with the "eternality" of Jesus Christ. And since He is eternal according to John 1:1-3 He is also the one who will make all things new.

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how and why does Jesus make these statements, when according to their teaching he is not one being with God the Father?

Although you specifically ask about the designation ‘First and Last’, there is a clear biblical link to that and the oft-concurrent designation ‘Alpha and Omega’, which is abundantly clear in the book of Revelation, and in JW literature. See https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/alpha-omega/ Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”?

  “The Alpha and the Omega” refers to Jehovah God, the Almighty. This
  term occurs three times in the Bible.—Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13.
  …Why does God call himself “the Alpha and the Omega”?  Alpha and omega
  are the first and last letters of the alphabet in Greek, the language
  used to write the part of the Bible commonly called the New Testament,
  which includes the book of Revelation. The respective positions of
  these letters in the Greek alphabet are used to illustrate that
  Jehovah alone is the beginning and the end. (Revelation 21:6) He was
  Almighty God in the infinite past, and he will continue to be Almighty
  God forever. He is the only one who is “from everlasting to
  everlasting.”—Psalm 90:2. Who is “the first and the last”?  The Bible
  applies this term both to Jehovah God and to his Son, Jesus, but with
  different meanings…”

More on that later.

Here is another official JW link, ‘Highlights From the Book of Revelation’, 15 January 2009 Watchtower - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009046#h=11:0-12:0  However, I used the 1988 JW publication “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. 1  which states (in agreement) that only Jehovah God has the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 1:8. This is because the verse goes on to say this one is “the Almighty” (page 81). JW teaching is that only Jehovah is the Almighty God, and Jesus is the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)  This explains two points in their article on ‘Alpha and Omega’:

(1) “Although the preceding verse [7] speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to ‘the Almighty’ God.” Then the article cites Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) in support, as it apparently states, “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here… There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.” Thus, the JWs feel justified in adding the word ‘Jehovah’ before ‘God’ in their New World Translation of Rev. 1:8. citing 7 translations dating from 1599 to 1961. [See their 1969 KIT for that.]

(2) ‘Insight Vol. I’ also acknowledges an “additional occurrence of this phrase in the King James rendering of Rev. 1:11”. But the JW view is that some Greek manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, do not have the trumpet sounding “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”. They therefore omit this, as do many other modern translations, which is possibly why you did not include verse 11 in your question.

The ‘Insight’ book then goes on to deal with Rev. 21:6 where it says “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,” dismissing that as applicable to Jesus because verse 7 adds, “and I shall be his God and he will be my son”. JW theology acknowledges Jesus as the Mighty God of Isaiah 9:6, but refuses to have him elevated from what they take to be a secondary level of deity, to a God who is to be worshipped. See Isaiah’s Prophecy Vol. I pp130-131 (published 2000). The ‘Insight’ book, however, does not say that but gives as its reason for applying verse 6 to Jehovah:

  “Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in
  his Kingdom as ‘brothers’, not ‘sons’, the speaker must be Jesus’
  heavenly Father,  Jehovah God.” (The JW link above agrees with this.)

You particularly want to know how “the eternality” of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3) relates to Jesus being the first and the last. It is common knowledge that the NWT renders John 1:1 as ‘the Word was a god’, meaning the Word cannot be of the same Being as God. JWs do not believe in “the eternality” of Jesus Christ and so offer an interpretation of him being ‘the first and the last’ that only refers to his unique,  one-of-a-kind resurrection. This is why JW doctrine, that the Word was created by Jehovah and so had a starting point in time, has to be explained as only referring to Jehovah raising Jesus to life in a unique way (as the ‘first fruits’ of those who sleep in death), and that as nobody else will be so resurrected, Jesus is ‘first and last’ in that sense only.

Isaiah 44:6 is dealt with in the JW book “Isaiah’s Prophecy” Vol. II pp64-65 (published 2001). It is not quoted in isolation but includes verses 7 & 8 to give context. Then the paragraph following explains how Jehovah is challenging the [false] gods to present their case, adding,

  “Only ‘the first and the last,’ who existed before all the false gods
  were thought of and will still be there when they are long forgotten,
  can do such a thing. His people need not fear to bear witness to this
  truth, since they have the support of Jehovah, who is as firm and
  stable as a massive rock!”

It does not say a word about Jesus. That would fit in with the JW stance that Jesus being ‘first and last’ is only with respect to his unique resurrection – something that happened TO him, and not due to his BEING the first and the last. As JWs insist that only Jehovah is eternal (with no starting point in time) they agree he is eternal in his un-created being, but that Jesus is a created (hence, different) being: “The Bible applies this term both to Jehovah God and to his Son, Jesus, but with different meanings” as that first JW link says. I give this answer purely to answer your question, without agreeing with the JW stance.


Luke 16:19-31—Is the rich man in Hell or Purgatory? Luke 16:19-31 (NASB)
Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Question: Could it be that the rich man was in Purgatory, and not Hell?
The rich man had compassion for his brothers. This does not seem likely if he were in Hell. If the rich man in Luke 16 is in Hell (and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, waiting for the Christ to release him to Heaven) why would he, the rich man,  try to keep his brothers from going to where he is?
In Hell they want everyone to die, not live, I believe. Could this mean that the rich  man was in Purgatory instead?

It's highly unlikely that the rich man is in Purgatory, as opposed to Hell, for at least a few reasons, as I see it:

1) This seems to be a parable about real persons, but related in parabolic form (characters in parables do not usually have names). So that seemingly mutually contradictory aspects therein are simply Jesus including all He needs to teach about the in the one simple story (i.e. Hebrews 9:27).

2) Jesus famously taught that it is extremely hard for anyone who clings to their riches or possessions to enter heaven (Lk 18:24-25). So that using a rich man as an example of someone who 'got off with it'1 would seem undesirable here.

3) "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not [believe]2 even if someone rises from the dead" describes an unforgiven sin—one of not believing unto salvation. This does not constitute a mere venial sin, but a damnable, that is, mortal one (cf. Matthew 18:17b).

4) The use of "father" and "son" doesn't necessarily mean amicability, especially because it's a parable, but also as neither does "friend" in Jesus' usage elsewhere.3

5) "between us and you there is a great chasm fixed" and "saw Abraham far away" would seem to put this place of torment out reach of any hope—"in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment" seems to be the didactic focus of the parable, and so here Jesus eases out of the parable a little here towards the end and into the conclusion or point He wants to get across (as I find He does with others). In this case, the point He is getting across is the inability to change yours or others' situation once you die.

Footnotes

1 Purgatory isn't 'getting off with it' but as far as this rich man being in Purgatory instead of Hell, it would give the same, counterproductive impression here.

2 πείθω—to be persuaded or conviniced; by implication: believe (root of the word for 'faith' πίστις)

3 e.g. in Matthew 20:13; 22:12; 26:50 Jesus terms reprobates 'friend.'


How does Mark's Gospel mark the final hours in the life of Jesus Mark's Gospel makes frequent use of chiastic and parallel structures, and there appears to be an important structure in chapters 14 and 15, marking off time intervals in the 24 hours from the Last Supper to Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea.

How are those time intervals defined in Mark?

John Shelby Spong describes the structure quite succinctly in Jesus for the NonReligious, pages 101-4.  He says Mark organised the first narrative account of the death of Jesus in a twenty-four hour cycle, neatly divided into eight three-hour segments. A summary of Bishop Spong's explanation follows:

Mark started the story "when it was evening" (Mark 14:17). In this ancient
world, that would mean when the sun went down at 6 pm. [The ancients divided the daylight hours into exactly 12 hours of variable length, instead of a variable number of hours of fixed length.]
Mark knew that the duration of the Passover meal was three hours and that it concluded with the singing of a hymn.  So at the end of his segment he noted, "And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives" (14:26). It was obviously about 9 p.m.
Mark then has Jesus and the disciples go to the Garden of
Gethsemane, where his closest disciples, Peter, James and John, were
not able to remain awake. "Could you not watch one hour?” (14:77)
Jesus asked.  The process was repeated two more times.  The
disciples could not watch one, two or three hours.  It was now midnight.
The act of betrayal, the darkest deed in human history, came next,
occurring at the stroke of midnight.
Jesus was led away for a trial before the high priest and other
senior priests and elders. They then judged him, on the basis of his messianic claim, to be worthy of death.  It was 3:00 a.m.
The watch of the night between 3 am and 6 am was called cockcrow. Mark now inserted his account of Peter's threefold denial of Jesus (14:66-72), once each hour until the cock crowed, marking the end of that phase of the night.  It was 6 a.m.
"As soon as it was morning" (15:1), which would be 6 am, Jesus was
led by the chief priests, scribes and elders to Pontius Pilate for
judgement.
Mark told his readers, " It was the third hour" or 9 am “when they
crucified him" (15:25).
When "the sixth hour had come" (15:33) – 12 noon – darkness covered the whole earth for 3 hours, at which time Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (15:34).
Jesus was buried in the final period from 3 to 6 pm, before the sun went down and the Sabbath began.


Why did Jesus not stone the adulteress? In John 8:1-11, a woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and was demanded to judge her according to the Law of Moses. Jesus told them that anyone without sin can stone her. No one dared to cast the first stone, probably because they realized that they were not blameless and ultimately everyone left. Now at this point, Jesus could have said,

  "Okay woman. Seems like their is no one without sin who can stone you. Now listen, I am the God of Abraham, I am the God who gave the Law to Moses and since I
  am without sin, I am the only one who can stone you now. As it is not
  right to break the Law that I myself had made, I am now going to stone you to
  death!"

Instead, Jesus said,

  "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more".

Did Jesus break the Law of Moses?
Why didn't Jesus stone the adulteress as He is qualified to stone her?
What can we learn from this story?

Please provide elegant interpretations from any denominations and theologians on this topic.

Because Jesus' message was forgiveness of sins. Not condemnation for them.

Leviticus 20 (ESV)

  10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I immediately notice 2 things here. The first is that both parties of adultery are to be condemned. And second that this looks a lot like a civil law, to be enforced not by a mob, but by the authorities.

This gets into the tripartite division of the law. Depending on how you slice it, there are three forms of law given in the Old Testament

Moral
Ceremonial
Civil

Christians generally acknowledge that the Ceremonial law was fulfilled by Jesus, that the moral law is still in effect and that the civil law is tricky, but was largely given for the state of Israel to run smoothly. The general advice I've heard on the civil law is that if it can be boiled down to a principal then that is what we should draw from it (in the case of this Leviticus passage we can probably take a few things, I'll leave that to the reader though as it's not exactly relevant to this answer).

But ultimately, the answer to your question comes from why Jesus came to the earth, lived the life that he lived, died the death that he did and resurrected as he did and ascended into heaven like he did.

IF Jesus had come to establish an earthly kingdom, the kick off Roman rule and re-establish the kingdom of Israel as an earthly kingdom, he would not have stopped the mob. He might have allowed the punishment that was proscribed in the scriptures to continue. He likely would have ordered her partner in adultery to be brought forth as well and stoned.

But that wasn't his mission, and that was not what he did.

Let's not lose the context here either. This was a trap. Matthew Henry in his commentary lays it out like this:

  If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But, [2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him, First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets. Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.

Why hello Admiral, yes, yes it was.

Either way Jesus was stuck. However, by turning the accusation on the woman's captors, by highlighting their own sin/imperfection, he was showing the following things:

He was showing that we are all condemned by our sins.
He was highlighting his own mission of forgiveness and the call to repentance
He confirms the law of Moses, the just punishment of the woman and the fact that the men before him were unrepentant violators of the law who were not fit to carry out the sentence.

Henry again:

  He builds upon an uncontested maxim in morality, that it is very absurd for men to be zealous in punishing the offences of others, while they are every whit as guilty themselves, and they are not better than self-condemned who judge others, and yet themselves do the same thing: "If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her.’’ Not that magistrates, who are conscious of guilt themselves, should therefore connive at others’ guilt. But therefore, (a. ) Whenever we find fault with others, we ought to reflect upon ourselves, and to be more severe against sin in ourselves than in others. (b. ) We ought to be favourable, though not to the sins, yet to the persons, of those that offend, and to restore them with a spirit of meekness, considering ourselves and our own corrupt nature.

This reminds me of another of Jesus' parables. Matthew 18 (ESV)

  23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.[h] 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.[i] 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant[j] fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,[k] and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,[l] until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

Calvin's commentary has an even more interesting point. It was not for Jesus to stone the woman even if he had wanted to. It was up to the accuser to mete out the punishment:

  He who is without sin among you. He said this according to the custom of the Law; for God commanded that the witnesses should, with their own hands, put malefactors to death, according to the sentence which had been pronounced on them; that greater caution might be used in bearing testimony, (Deuteronomy 17:7.) There are many who proceed rashly to overwhelm their brother by perjury, because they do not think that they inflict a deadly wound by their tongue. And this very argument, had weight with those slanderers, desperate as they were; for no sooner do they obtain a sight of it, than they lay aside those fierce passions with which they were swelled when they came. Yet there is this difference between the injunction of the Law and the words of Christ, that in the Law God merely enjoined that they should not condemn a man with the tongue, unless they were permitted to put him to death with their own hands; but here Christ demands from the witnesses perfect innocence, so that no man ought to accuse another of crime, unless he be pure, and free from every fault. Now what he said, at that time, to a few persons, we ought to view as spoken to all, that whoever accuses another, ought to impose on himself a law of innocence; otherwise, we do not pursue wicked actions, but rather are hostile to the persons of men.


How and when did the water come into being? In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters.

So this is before creation, so where does water come from? why it exist before the first day? And if there is face of water, there seems to me should be some gravity somewhere, what's the stage of universe at this time?

Well, you see, when two atoms of hydrogen love an atom of oxygen very much...

When I was a literalist (and it seems you are looking through those glasses) my interpretation was that when God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."), that would have included the waters. Since the waters and the lands and the waters above the heavens and the waters on the earth were not separated yet, then it is a bit difficult to nail down the dimensionality of it all, but simply because we cannot conceive of a world where there is little boundary between gaseous and liquid state that does not means that it could not exist. Of course, fog exists, so it is quite possible that water was originally created as a liquid suspended in air.

You might be reading too much into "over". To say that God is literally and exclusively "over" something is as nonsensical as saying he is literally and exclusively "under" something. Time and space are never literal in such a context.


What does it mean that John's Gospel does not have an account of the institution of the Eucharist? I'm preparing a class on the institution of the Eucharist and my text says

  "The Gospel of John includes no mention of the institution of the Eucharist"

it goes on to give the account, for reasons unknown to me, of Jesus washing His disciple's feet.  Which incidentally would have happened at about the same time as the institution of the Eucharist in the other Gospels.  The thing I noticed here is that in the same way that Jesus says we should consume His Body and Blood in remembrance of Him, He also says that we should wash each others feet.

Do washing feet and the Eucharist have anything to do with each other?  What could have made John write about washing feet and not what so certainly stuck out in the minds of the other Gospel authors and St. Paul.

John's Gospel does not contain many of the things recorded in the Synoptics, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the virgin birth, the Great Commission, and the Ascension.  In fact, the only miracle outside of the Resurrection that appears in both the Synoptic gospels and John's gospel is the feeding of the 5,000.

This doesn't mean that John considered these things as unimportant at all.  If John were, in fact, written much later than the other gospels, then perhaps John did not feel the need to replicate material that was already well established.

John writes for a very specific purpose, asserting that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)  So, the material he selects is done so for the purpose of supporting that premise.  All the miracles and all the teachings center around that premise.  The Eucharist appears to have not fit into that selection criteria for him, since it doesn't appear in the book.


What common apologetic arguments support the view that it is more likely that Jesus was resurrected than his body was stolen? I am curious as to why Christians think that the resurrection hypothesis is more plausible and probable than any of the many alternative explanations like the body being stolen.

I look forward to your responses.

I'm going to preface this by reminding the community that whether or not a theory is true is off-topic.  What is taught is what's at hand, and also what's asked. The following is only addressing what is asked: "What reasons are given".  Refrain from debates over what is more "plausible", please.

Unlike skeptics, Christians are willing to believe in the miraculous, so the idea that an idea sounds "miraculous" or "supernatural" does not automatically, in our minds, disqualify it from being reasonable.  Therefore, we accept the possibility of a single supernatural event as possible, and turn to the remaining evidence.

With that out of the way, the standard Apologetic answer is that the stolen body hypothesis does  not make sense in light of the evidence.

Excerpts from ChristianAnsers.net:

  Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb
  (Matthew 27:62f) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every
  motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the
  disciples and nip their movement in the bud.

  Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed
  the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone
  door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of
  the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11f. That story would only have
  served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake.

  Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to
  steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were
  scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have
  been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they
  were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their
  lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they
  knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered
  so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception?

  It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection.
  The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings,
  imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what
  they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their
  deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Beyond that, Jesus appeared to large groups of people after his death.  From about.com:

  A large crowd of more than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ
  at the same time. The Apostle Paul records this event in 1 Corinthians
  15:6. He states that most of these men and women were still alive when
  he wrote this letter, about 55 A.D. Undoubtedly they told others about
  this miracle. Today, psychologists say it would be impossible for a
  large crowd of people to have had the same hallucination at once.
  Smaller groups also saw the risen Christ, such as the apostles, and
  Cleopas and his companion. They all saw the same thing, and in the
  case of the apostles, they touched Jesus and watched him eat food. The
  hallucination theory is further debunked because after the ascension
  of Jesus into heaven, sightings of him stopped.

We can also point to the sudden emergence of courage of the Apostles.  After being a bunch of cowards that scattered to the wind at the crucifixion, they suddenly became brave, and willing to die as martyrs after seeing the resurrected Christ.

Also noted is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who went from persecuting Christians to being one of the most prolific authors of the new Testament, and who went through all sorts of hardships in the name of Christ after his encounter with the resurrected Christ.

(These are also documented in the links I gave.)

Note that searching for "Stolen body hypothesis" will give the same basic answer over and over.  Even Wikipedia covers it.


When it seems a Pope has heretical beliefs, who determines whether those beliefs are Magisterial? I know that even some Catholics think that certains Popes held personal heresies (were material heretics). For example Honorius I believed that Jesus had only one will, the heresy of monothelitism.

I understand that a Pope might be a heretic, but to preserve the believed infallibility of his office he can't impose those beliefs ex cathedra—i.e., using the full weight of his office—onto the Church.

Who has the authority to judge which statements issued by the Pope are infallible?

Note: This question seems to address what the "criteria" used are, but I am asking: Who uses these criteria to decide the matter?

Whether valid popes have been heretics
It isn't necessarily true that Pope Honorius I was a heretic. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the great doctor of the papacy, defended several popes, including Pope Honorius I, against accusations of heresy in his work that is translated into English as Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih (ch. 4 is on Pope Honorius I). Among the seven accusations against Pope Honorius I that St. Robert's refutes are the the accusations that Dialogist quotes below.
St. Robert also treats the question of whether a Pope can be a heretic in  De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30 (On the Roman Pontiff). He argues that a pope cannot be a heretic; if he is, he, like St. Francis de Sales wrote in his Catholic Controversy p. 306,

falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.**Acts i.

Who can judge a pope's validity?
As I mentioned in my answer to your other question, only a valid Pope is the supreme judge:

Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

This law is based upon the infallible dogma of papal primacy which, pace Dialogist's answer above, has been true since the time Christ instituted the Papacy (Matt. 16:16-19), founding it on the rock of St. Peter himself, the first Pope. As the First Vatican Council (Pastor æternus ch. 4 "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter"), united with the Pope, infallibly declared:

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas," [John i. 42.] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.' [Matt. xvi. 16-19.] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [John xxi. 15-17.] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.

Any Catholic can and must recognize and refuse to follow an antipope.
However, any Catholic who recognizes an antipope as an antipope must refuse to follow him. St. Paul says twice in Galatian 1:8-9:

But although we, or an Angel from heaven, evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he anathema.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he anathema.

Notice, St. Paul says anyone, which certainly includes those who appear to be popes (antipopes).


Is God capable of ever doing wrong? Does Christianity definitively state that the God can never do wrong?  If so, where is this stated?

Christianity defines right and wrong through God. It's not whether God does right or wrong, but rather that something is right because God does it, or is in his nature to do.


Why didn't Jesus want the demon possessed people to tell who he was? So Jesus healed great numbers of sick people who had many different kinds of diseases, and he ordered many demons to come out of their victims. But because they knew who he was, he refused to allow the demons to speak. Mark 1:34  NLT

  So Jesus healed many people who were sick with various diseases, and
  he cast out many demons. But because the demons knew who he was, he
  did not allow them to speak

Mark 3:12 NLT

But Jesus strictly warned them not to say who he was.

Demons can say pretty much whatever they want, lying or telling the truth as it suits them.

Jesus had already been accused of consorting with demons by such groups as the Sanhedrin (for example, in Matthew 12:24). He refuted those claims, of course, but they kept coming up, so it's likely that at least some people believed them. In that context, a demon claiming that Jesus was the Messiah would have hurt him much more than it helped. His enemies could not only have handwaved it as a lie, they could claim that Jesus had commanded it to lie "to help its master." So commanding them to tell the truth would have done no good. Even if he hadn't commanded them to tell the truth, they could have said it anyway, precisely because it would have hurt him.

So the truth was no good. But it would have been grossly out of Jesus's character to command the demons to lie, and ultimately, it wouldn't have done any good anyway. If they'd said that Jesus was their master, then his enemies would try to claim that this was, in fact, the truth. If they claimed he was an ordinary person -which would have been obviously untrue to anyone nearby- it would have cast more suspicion on him even without anybody saying anything. There is also, of course, the possibility that they could have lied without being commanded, again because it would have hurt him.

In short, anything a demon said would have been used against Jesus, one way or another. He could not allow them to tell the truth, and he could not allow them to lie, so he took a third option: he didn't let them say anything. It was the only way to avoid getting trapped by their words.


Have there been any Christian writings on the genetics of Jesus? Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin.  From a scientific perspective, this means that he would have had no genetic material provided from a male parent.  So my question is, have there been any Christian writings on how this worked genetically, i.e. what we would find if we had a DNA sample of Jesus?

One possibility is that God might have arranged Jesus to be genetically like what a biological son of Joseph and Mary would have been like.  Are there any Christian writings that suggest that Jesus physically resembled his adopted father Joseph?  Or did he only bear a resemblance to Mary?

Note that I don't want speculation, I just want to know what Christians have already said about this subject.

Ron Wyatt, a researcher who was a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, claimed that he had discovered the blood of Jesus on the Ark of the Covenant and that it had only 23 chromosomes (i.e. that Jesus was haploid and literally didn't have any DNA contribution from a father).

Wyatt's claims seem to not be very well respected in mainline and even fundamentalist Christian circles. For example, Answers in Genesis, a Creationist organization, rejects Wyatt's findings.

Regardless of whether you accept Wyatt's actual findings as true, the fact that he has a following indicates that the idea that Jesus might have been haploid has been considered plausible by some Christians.


According to the YEC view, did the animals eat the forbidden fruit? Assuming the Young Earth Creationist view that the Genesis account is literal history...

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they were condemned to death which caused every subsequent human to bear death's potential. The question is: since animals also die just like each and every one of us, did they also eat the forbidden fruit?

Most adherents to the literal young-earth seven-day creation account believe that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, God applied the curse to the entire universe, including animals.  Animals didn't need to eat the fruit to be affected by the curse. From the YEC view, whether animals ate the fruit is irrelevant because they weren't made "in God's image"

Supporting example, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/museum-guide-corruption

  God had warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the Tree, they would
  die. When God came to walk with them that evening, He punished their
  sin. The earth was now cursed. Death was now part of life; both
  animals and humans would now die (Genesis 3:19; Romans 8:20–22). When
  the first humans sinned, it corrupted all of creation. The ground was
  cursed and would produce thistles and thorns (Genesis 3:17–18).
  Animals began to hunt and eat other animals. Man would now have to
  work hard for food, and woman would have pain in bearing and raising
  her children (Genesis 3:16–17).

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) says this:

  The animals, not having moral natures, were not guilty of sin, of
  course, but they also shared in the Curse, for they were—like
  Adam—made of the dust of the ground that God had cursed. Like Adam's
  body, their bodies also must return to the ground. Henceforth, "death
  reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
  Adam's transgression" (Romans 5:14). Thus there is death in the world
  only because there is sin in the world.


How does Western Christian theology explain the doctrine of the Filioque within the context of the Old Testament? I'm doing a pseudo-superficial scriptural study of the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed and how it differs from the Latin addition of the Filioque. The Caroligian theologians mainly used the Gospel of John's words of Jesus where he says that he will "send" the Holy Spirit from the Father.

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how this applies to the co-eternal relationship between the persons of the Trinity. How does the Spirit "proceed" from the Son before he is sent by Jesus, given that scripture indicates the Spirits procession from the Father before the incarnation?

Ref. Psalms 51:13, Isaiah 63:10

If I understand the question, it seems to be along the lines of "How can Jesus be the one who sends the Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit is sent in the Old Testament?"

There's two threads that help answer this.  The first is that Jesus is there in the Old Testament.  The second is that the Holy Spirit was only given to a select few in the Old Testament, not all the people.

Regarding the first thread or point, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God.  He is the same Word through whom God spoke everything into existence in Genesis 1; John makes this point in the opening of his Gospel.  Jesus is also the "angel of the Lord" who appears throughout the Old Testament.  The "angel of the Lord" is the Lord Himself, the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ; this is seen, for instance, in Genesis 22, Exodus 3, and the visit of the three men to Abraham in Genesis 18, one of whom Abraham calls "the Lord." So, Jesus was there in the first act of creation and is with his people throughout the Old Testament.

Regarding the second thread or point, in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit is only given to certain people, mainly the prophets (although the kings such as Saul, David, and Solomon also had the Holy Spirit, see for instance 1 Samuel 16:14 when the Spirit departs from Saul).  In fact, in Numbers 11:29, after the Lord takes some of the Spirit He had given Moses and gives the Spirit to the elders of Israel, Moses says, "Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"  Then, in Joel 2:29, the Lord promises that He will one day pour out His Spirit upon "al flesh."  Peter connects this promise with Pentecost in Acts 2:17-18; this is, in the New Testament Church the Lord is fulfilling His promise to pour out His Spirit upon "all flesh."

Thus, owing to Christ's ascension back into heaven to take his seat at the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit is poured out on all believers, not just the select few as in the Old Testament.  This is visually seen in Revelation 5 when John sees Christ, the Lamb "with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (Rev. 5:6).  These "seven spirits" symbolize the Holy Spirit who Christ sends in fulfillment of the longing of Moses, the promise of the Lord through Joel, and Christ's own promises (cf. John 14:26, 15:26).

I think the Filioque is just trying to get across the point that the Holy Spirit is sent to all believers due to Christ's ascension as well as stress the essential divine unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are "one God in three persons."  The Son does the Father's will and together they send the Holy Spirit to witness to Christ and bring people to faith.


Does Jesus contradict Himself in these verses? Just to state, I don't necessarily believe Jesus contradicted Himself. But these parts of Scripture sound like a contradiction, and I would like to hear any thoughts on how this can be reconciled.
I thought of this question after reading this post and these verses:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.

Luke 22:36-38
But then when they come to seize Jesus, after Judas betrays Him with a kiss, this happens:

51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and, striking the body servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Matt. 26:51-52
As per the answers in the linked post, Jesus had them get swords so the prophecies could be fulfilled: That He would be counted amongst the transgressors, and His arrest would be certain. But then why would Jesus reprove Peter of using his sword the way he did in the latter verses, when that is what He wanted to happen? Perhaps "contradiction" wasn't the best choice of wording, feel free to edit if you can word it better for me :)

I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.

Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.

If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority.

Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm). While Jesus was "just another rabbi", they had little to fear.

Yet for the next few weeks, "Jesus" was synonymous with "criminal". People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum.

This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.

P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say "You shouldn't have done that", but instead says, "That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it" (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business.

Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5